None of the Cheney family is serving in our military. Dick Cheney could have served during Viet Nam, but got five deferrments instead of going into the military. The Cheneys have nobody brave enough to enlist and die serving our country, yet they are the most vocal about how our young people should be sent to Iraq, and the correctness of the war. This seems elitist and just plain wrong. Is it?
2007-01-23 03:43:38 · 12 answers · asked by cathy e 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Slappy, this has nothing to do with voting for anybody. If you don't participate, you have no basis to tell others to or to stir up a war you wouldn't be willing for your own to fight. This would apply to Clinton or any other person. And, my ancestors participated, beginning with the Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, Viet Nam.
2007-01-23 03:54:51 · update #1
Of course Cheney has freedom of speach, which does not make what she writes less hypocritical and offensive.
2007-01-23 03:58:11 · update #2
Slappy, I'm saying to save the "we need to go to war" speech if you got 5 deferrments to keep from going, and none of your family is willing to serve, because nobody should listen to you.
2007-01-23 04:02:34 · update #3
"This seems elitist and just plain wrong. Is it?"
It does, but at the same time, should they say "Well, since I never served in a war, I should let terrorists attack the US and Iraq to turn into another bloody dictatorship that hates the US"?
They really have to put that message out, regardless of how they feel about it. But you do have a point, it is kinda elitist.
2007-01-23 03:49:13 · answer #1 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Wolf-man interview huh, Ya that's what he is saying! If you saw that interview notice how he avoids/spins answering Wolfs questions even getting upset with questions that were not supposed to be asked? Are we dealing with a lying crook as VP or what? Cheney "if we don't succeed in Iraq the consequences are huge" Ya in details MR. Cheney what are those Consequences? Everyone in the Bush cabinet are parroting the same words. Of-course they can't reveal the details for security reason ah B/S the legal oil contracts have not been settled for the British & American oil companies yet!
2016-05-24 00:56:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That argument is so tired and inane that I'm surprised that an otherwise intelligent person would even bother to bring it up. Look at the Congress. There are more republican senators and house members with kids in the war than there are democratic ones.
You CAN'T be that ignorant, can you? So you're essentially saying that NO FUTURE PRESIDENT must EVER take us to war unless their own children are fighting in it? Well, you've set back the Feminist movement about 200 years with that argument. Suppose you have a very bright, liberal, democrat woman who wins the Presidency some day, and for whatever reason, she had never married or had kids... So what you're saying is that she's not qualified to hold the office because she MIGHT have to take the country to war one day. Man, that's effed-up...
Also, you have to remember that Cheney was young, dumb and probably idealist during Vietnam, and maybe he genuinely didn't believe in the mission... I'd like to think that with age comes a little wisdom and the ability to think issues through a little more carefully... Your position would be analogous to saying that no president who has ever smoked pot in their past should ever propose an anti-drug law...
2007-01-23 03:47:55 · answer #3 · answered by I hate friggin' crybabies 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The VP's wife is an American citizen and as such she is entitled to all the rights that implies, the same as any other citizen would be. Why would you want to prevent her from doing this just because she has no family member serving in the military? Thats like saying no one can write any article if they have no experience in the endeavor.
2007-01-23 03:50:36 · answer #4 · answered by JESSIE James 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You know whats really wrong, it's presidents that have been in the military feeling it was their duty to the country, and then becomming presidents and not going to war when it's their duty to stand up for America! Like Clinton. How ironic.
2007-01-23 03:51:21 · answer #5 · answered by Brianne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Would you be asking the same question if Bill Clinton were still in office. He never served either. Hillary never served. Are you willing to not vote for her on that basis? Did you serve?
She has as much right to write articles as anyone else does.
2007-01-23 03:47:55 · answer #6 · answered by JB 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Can I get permission to express my opinion in writing about the war? Oh I suppose not my kids aren't serving. But wait can I geta waiver? I DID serve 6 years in the US Navy ,,,,,but that probably still doesn't give me the right to an opinion.
Not to be ugly, but did you serve? Do you have children serving in Iraq? God bless them if you do, & ya know what you STILL are entitled to an opinion whether you served or not!!
That's a pretty cool concept dontcha think!! It's not that way in every country. You could check it out!!
2007-01-23 04:01:12 · answer #7 · answered by SantaBud 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its his job to stand behind whatever the President's opinion is
2007-01-23 03:51:22 · answer #8 · answered by Mopar Muscle Gal 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
So, which branch of the service are/were you in? If you aren't, you have no business criticizing others.
2007-01-23 03:56:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Cheney is sick with a rifle, he could be a killing machine!
2007-01-23 03:47:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋