Cheney says U.S. wants to leave Iraq "with honor"

AP via Yahoo ^ | 02/20/07 | Caren Bohan

[HarryCaul]

TOKYO (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday the United States wants to finish its mission in Iraq and "return with honor," despite the war's growing unpopularity at home and doubts among U.S. allies.

Cheney's visit to Tokyo comes just weeks after Japan's defense minister said starting the Iraq war was a mistake and its foreign minister called the U.S. occupation strategy "immature."

The remarks forced Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whom Cheney meets later in Wednesday, to scurry to reassure Washington that Tokyo's backing for U.S. policy in Iraq was unchanged.

[HarryCaul]

Hmm. Sounding a little too Richard M. rather Richard B. for my tastes there.

Surely he know what he's calling to mind with that...

[jmc1969]

Peace with Honor?

[Tulsa Ramjet]

The hell with honor. We need to destroy the enemy as long as it takes. This mission is enduring. There will be no surrender papers signed on the deck of some ship. Cheney needs to get re-focused. The polls are in the tank, so who cares. Get as many as possible.

Statements about returning with honor is dripping with political b.s. The soldiers and sailors just want to do the job, come home, and if three years later they have to redeploy, so be it. They didn't join to sell girl scout cookies. Its the mission, not about perceived honor.

[philetus]

Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday the United States wants to finish its mission in Iraq and "return with honor,"

Don't let your shirttail hold you back.

[jmc1969]

Well at least they haven't said "light at the end of the tunnel" yet.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "The hell with honor. We need to destroy the enemy as long as it takes... The polls are in the tank, so who cares. Get as many as possible."

I never thought Vice President Cheney would lose his nerve--or his spine. I'm hoping it was a thoughtless gaffe, not Nixonian codespeak for ignominious defeat. Republican leadership better start talking 'Peace with victory,' or they'll undermine morale more than the Democrats could hope for with their 'slow bleed' strategy.

I despair sometimes. It seems that a sizable proportion of our national leaders, left and right, are either actively conniving to arrange a defeat or are frantically attempting to cut political losses. I think many on both sides badly, tragically misread the American people, who want to win and who know victory is possible, and who are evidently made of sterner stuff than our feckless leadership.

The way to win is to hunt down and kill the enemy, and keep killing him until he is dead or knows he is beaten. It means getting your hands dirty--or bloody, as the case may be. War is an altogether messy, uncertain business: always a roll of the dice, never a sure thing, and not for the faint-hearted.

I voted for this President. I believe in this President. I can't believe he would ever condone a Nixon-like 'peace with honor' solution.

[Just A Nobody]

Cheney said: "We know that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength, they are invited by the perception of weakness.

"We know that if we leave Iraq before the mission is completed, the enemy is going to come after us. And I want you to know that the American people will not support a policy of retreat," he added.

"We want to complete the mission, we want to get it done right, and we want to return with honor," said Cheney

What exactly is wrong with what Vice President Cheney actually said, without all the AP BS???

[Tulsa Ramjet]

here is the only people that have tried getting, or concerned with leaving Iraq with Honor:

George Tenet: "One of the Greatest CIA directors ever."
Gen. Casey: "One of the Greatest CENTCOM's ever. Heck, lets give him a promotion."
Sec. Rumsfeld: "One of the Greatest SecDef's ever."
Paul Wolfowitz: "One of the Greatest..."I forgot what he used to be. He was the one that when asked how many American's have died, he had no clue. He should have had a counter on his desk.

Seems the only people that are trying to leave Iraq with honor are those that have mismanaged it. When its all said and done, it will be the soldier that has honor, and he/she doesn't need to talk about it, in hopes of getting it.

Hopefully Petraeus cleans house. Bush needs to clean house. His own house, and get a war cabinet back in for the final 1 1/2 years of his administration left. He literally has nothing electorially to lose. Have Bush go ask the soldiers in Walter Reed on whether it was right to not have 300,000 troops go in, versus the 150K that rumsfeld pushed over his generals heads. I wonder what that soldier would say and whether he feels like he has honor. Honor in who? His leaders, or his fellow americans for their lack of will to crush a sect of people that wants to destroy us all? Does anyone doubt that Saddam tried to assassinate ex Pres. Bush? Am I talknig to a wall?

[Paleo Conservative]

I am not a crook.

[xzins]

I never thought Vice President Cheney would lose his nerve--or his spine

If you'll read the article again, it says "FINISH THE MISSION and leave with honor."

The media distorts what gets said to their own advantage. In this case they distorted the title of the article. Technically, it is a true title because Cheney did say, "leave with honor," but it is incomplete.

It makes all the difference in the world to add the part about finishing the mission.

[rlmorel]

"...its foreign minister called the U.S. occupation strategy "immature"..."

Well. Coming from the Japanese, who SURELY know how to run an "occupation" better than anyone else, this is significant.

But hey. After all, we did criticize their occupation of Nanking, after all. In that light, perhaps we ARE immature.

We never did get that "baby juggling with bayonets" thing down pat as well as they did.

[rlmorel]

"...Have Bush go ask the soldiers in Walter Reed on whether it was right to not have 300,000 troops go in, versus the 150K that rumsfeld pushed over his generals heads..."

Have you done this, Tulsa Ramjet? Have you? Because I have, and that isn't what I have heard as the main or even a major issue from the soldiers there.

You are entitled to your opinion. But please don't push it on everyone else as sanctimonious fact.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

"Have you done this, Tulsa Ramjet? Have you? Because I have, and that isn't what I have heard as the main or even a major issue from the soldiers there."

I'm partially "there" pal. In Kandahar, right now. I hear it about my brothers and sisters just a bit to the west in Bagdad.
Where are YOU? Reading Op-Eds and FreeRepublic gaining invaluable SA? Puhleez.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

"please don't push it on everyone else as sanctimonious fact."

Its irrelevant now, but both generals Powell, Shesneski, and a host of others expressed concerns on how many troops were going in.

Soooooooooo....we need enough to fight for a long time. The combatant elements will slowly morph to Spec Ops and Air taskings because its obvious our nation does not have the stomach for a slow burn return. Sadly, it seems our nation's resolve is only best after we are attacked. But then our troops and commanders only have a two year window to wrap things up to get ready for the parade. We aren't going to have another parade for a long time. Everytime we are to commit to war, it should be for total annihilation of the enemy. Much like spraying fire ants in the backyard. I am astounded that we are in negotiations with an unwilling country to stop their march to nuclear weapons, and their leaders want to wipe another country off the map. I guess the UN lets anyone in these days.

[achingtobe]

An argument about the shape of the table should erupt any day now. . . .

No Fly Zones, anyone?

[SoCal Pubbie]

I still don't see the relevance of the number of troops in the invasion to today's situation. It's clear that no more were needed to dispose Saddam. It appears to me that decisions made AFTER the fall of the regime have contributed to the difficulties.

In as much as Syria's and Iran's strategy has always been to create just enough havoc to bloody the nightly news, and having MORE troops stationed in hostile war zones would have increased the cost, increased the number of Cindy Sheehans, and potentially increased the number of US casualties, I think it's a pointless exercise in finger pointing.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

It appears to me that decisions made AFTER the fall of the regime have contributed to the difficulties.

Well, since you put it out there, i'll bite.
If you ALREADY had the forces in place for the OCCUPATION, then maybe things would have went along better. Trying to come up with an extra 150K while things are going to hell is not very popular. But if they are already there, nobody cares. Who knows, and your are right. At this time, it may be irrelevant because America ain't gonna buy sending 150K more troops NOW because we have already bled out 3,000 (about 4-5 days of fighting at the height of WWII). In any event, any more talk of "leaving with honor" is going to boil my blood. Why don't Cheney "leave with honor" since we are mulling this around, he could resign and allow Bush a new perspective. Him and Tenet could write their book together.

[rlmorel]

Yeah. Sorry for being so harsh. After you stating your opinion ad-nauseum in the first five threads I went into this morning, I got tired of hearing it.

The issues I heard from the folks at Walter Reed were different from your supposed priorities. Why do you suggest asking those people at Walter Reed, except to imply that it might not be important to those making the decisions? Where is your proof to back up your implied assertion?

If you want to avoid emotional or irrational responses, I suggest you refrain from posting emotionally or irrationally.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

Sorry to pounce. Saw that you served, and greatly appreciate your service.

[rlmorel]

Just an observation: Powell was NOT a general when we were going in, and there are those who disagree with Shinseki even if someone like Abizaid does agree with him.

The opinion of someone that we needed more personnel in a post-Hussein Iraq does NOT make it a fact that more personnel would have altered the outcome. It is conjecture.

I do not disagree with your observation that the political short-sightedness inherent in our political system has been, and is going to be our weakness. And I agree with your observations regarding Iran.

But what is it that you are suggesting? Are you suggesting we load up a bunch of B-52's with Mk82's and carpet bomb Baghdad? Is that your suggestion? Because if it isn't, what exactly do you mean by 'total annihilation"?

We are not in there to destroy Iraq as we were to destroy Germany or Japan in WWII. The Irai people are not involved in war production, and like it or not, we are involved in an experiment in nation building. The alternative being to make it into a glass parking lot. There will be plenty of time for that. As an American, I appreciate the fact that we are attempting to do something that history will judge us kindly on. The Nazis and Soviets could carpet bomb or wipe out civilian populations to try to achieve their goals, and it didn't work for them. That won't work now.