I could already read the posts.

Attack the Liberals, Huffington Post, Nico Pitney, Gail Marshall (for NOT posting the the "positives" of Bush's policy, Gail for the post itself, the Fresno Bee, Democrats, Clintons Bill and/or Hillary.

Oh yea, attack on me for posting this.

4000 dead in Iraq or anywhere else saddens me and leaves me with a heavy heart. I refuse to place blame on Bush or his administration. Al Qaeda attacked us first whether they were from Iraq or somewhere else in the middle east. I just wish they could find Osama and get out of there. Iraq has had ample time to stand on their own but the insurgents are keeping us there.

Rich..enjoy your celebration of yourself.You deserve it.I know you've been waiting for this moment along with all your friends listed above.

Brian,

I don't get it, your post does not make sense.

Take some time and have it proof read by someone else. Maybe we can understand your point and have some dialogue.

Cheney's answer to ABC News' Martha Raddatz during an exclusive interview in Oman, when asked;

" ... how that [Cheney's concept of success] assessment comports with recent polls that show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it,

Cheney replied, "So?"

"You don't care what the American people think?" Raddatz asked the vice president.

"You can't be blown off course by polls," said Cheney ...

In reality, Martha Raddatz knows more about what is happening on the ground in Iraq better than anyone in the Cheney-Bush cabal in Washington.

We live in a republic, not a democracy.

Mr. Cheney understands that. Apparently better than a journalist.

"Republic" is just a very broad term encompassing all sorts of forms of government, from authoritarian to democratic. More precisely, the U.S. is a representative democracy. Our leaders are supposed to be responsive to the will of the people, not vice versa.

Looks like someone's missing a standard dictionary...

Not me. Look it up. Notice I didn't say the U.S. is not a republic. The question is, what type of republic? The answer is that we're a republic with a representative democracy as a form of government. This "republic v. democracy" thing is a false dichotomy perpetuated by those who don't think the government has to be responsive to the people. (Although they usually change their tune when a judge overturns an initiative that they liked.)

'Republic' is our form of government. It just means government by representatives (yes it's actually that simple). 'Democracy' is our method for choosing the people's representatives (people vote to select them).

That's not a dichotomy, false or otherwise. But you're right that under our form of government our elected officials are not accountable to the whims of popular sentiment except at designated election times, or as otherwise provided under law (recall, initiative, etc.).

The U.S. isn't governed as a democracy (people don't vote on laws or decisions except in certain state or local cases, certainly not related to national government), people only vote to elect their representatives.

That's not a bad thing. It was the intent of the founders in the first place. Dick Cheney understands that. Too many people don't.

Rich, your self indulgence is overwhelming and obviously never ending.Did you fire up a stogey over the Huffington Posts self serving "Mosaic". They(like yourself)are so obsessed with declaring defeat that they have been counting and collecting to put this together while waiting for their new perceived magic number. I'm embarassed for you and all involved in promoting your surrender mentality in such a sick manner.

4000 Soldiers have died in vain if we don't finish what we started whether it was on false grounds or not. I still think the media should get more information and thoughts from those that are there fighting in this war as I believe it would be more enlightening than anybody thinks. They just need to feel the support from all of back home.

Brian,

Sadly your posts detract from real dialogue as I mentioned previously.

I would also need to restate that it would help if you had a relative or friend proof read your posts. It will serve as a benifit to you and take your reading comprehension skills to another level.

First off you have no information to conclude that I have some sort of so-called "self indulgence" that is "never ending".

Also, assuming a relationship with Huffingpost is like most your assumptions, wrong.

Tony, you didn't really contradict me, except in your conclusions that don't really follow your premises. The U.S. is a representative democracy, as I said, which is one type of republic, as I said. To say you have to be one or the other is incorrect. Maybe we don't have any direct mechanism for holding our elected executives accountable once elected, other than the cumbersome process of impeachment, but the contemptuous disregard of the will of the people is one of the very reasons our forebears rebelled against George III.

Jackie, how many more soldiers will have to die so that the 4,000 won't have died "in vain"? We're in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. Can you define what exactly we need to do to consider the job "finished" so our troops can come home - alive?

Mike, I'm not your guy if you just want to argue semantics. The bottom line is what it always was -- Vice President Cheney's response was rooted in a real, deep tradition of history and American public policy while the reporter's question was based on ignorance of our own American system of government.

The fact that audience members such as yourself might impute some philosophical agreement with her idealistic (I'd say fanciful) view of how our elected representatives 'should' act doesn't detract from the legitimacy of Cheney's view.

Tony, the "semantics" is yours. You're the one who introduced the false dichotomy of "republic v. democracy," and proceded to throw the dictionary at me. You have failed to back up your bald assertion that the reporter's question to Cheney was based on ignorance.

The will of the people has always been a fundamental part of the ideals of our republic, if it hasn't always been practiced. That's why the Constitution begins with the words "We the People." To just elect our representatives and trust them to do their jobs without input from us (the people) is to shirk our duty as citizens under our system of government. This is fundamental to the functioning of the nation, not just a matter of "semantics."

Our role as citizens was never intended to be restricted to the ballot box only. That's what both you and Cheney seem to be missing. The president (or his surrogates) may have the power (temporarily, at least) to defy the will of the people, but he doesn't have the moral standing to ignore it.

Let's face it, Tony: You're floundering on this one. "We the people" trumps Cheney Worship. Give up before you back yourself into a corner defending totalitarianism.

You guys are so caught up in your own political views that you don't realize you're only arguing against our own Constitution.

You may not like Cheney, or Bush, or the necessity of war, or the intentions of the country's founding fathers, but Cheney and Bush were both duly elected (twice) under Constitutional law, and all the philosophical debate in the world isn't going to change the plain legitimacy of their actions or positions on issues under our system of government.

You can ignore our common law and instead try to change the conversation to one of 'morality,' (free speech is everyone's right, guaranteed under that same Constitution in fact) but to try to impose your ideas of morality on other people is where you lose your own standing to argue.

Totalitarianism has never been part of American political history, so no worries there. And the Constitution includes a process for amending it any time we like, as long as enough of the country agrees.

The biggest threat to the Republic we live in has always been an uneducated electorate.

Rich-thanks for the insight.Maybe you could be my friend.

Brian,

I'm not sure if your being facetious about being a friend.

Look at Mike D and Tony's posts for example, they seem to have a dialogue where readers can possibly learn something of value.

Now go back to your initial posts followed by your other replies. I simply would rather (for your benifit) learn to comprehend what the issues are and more accuratly reply.

This doesn't add a whole lot to the conversation, but from what I've read (http://www.amazon.com/1776-1787-Published-Omohundro-Institute-Williamsburg/dp/0807847232)
it seems that "we the people" was basically added as a way for the founders to justify their intention to instate a federal republic with authority over the states.

The states didn't want to give up supreme legislative powers but couldn't argue with the federalist logic that the people were the ultimate authority regardless of branch or realm. The federalists spent basically 10 years after Independence working out different rationalizations for what was obviously needed, a federal government. Their previous advocation of a "natural aristocracy" holding the top places in government and knowing what is best for the masses didn't fly with patriots like Sam Adams, as any declaration of luxury or aristocracy was considered blasphemous to the revolution.

The phrase (we the people)'s impact seems to be almost accidental, much like what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." By most accounts this was mostly overlooked by the committee editing the Declaration (including Franklin and John Adams), but if not for those words the country might not have felt as obligated to abolish slavery and grant suffrage for women.

I guess all I'm really saying is that declaring what the founders' intentions were is much more complicated than current politics lets on. This was 220 years ago, guys!

No doubt the definition of "we the people" has expanded since the original document was adopted. Originally it excluded slaves and Native Americans, and women were represented only through their husbands. If you look at all the amendments to the Constitution, especially those that affected the original text, the trend has consistently been to expand the power and influence of the citizens, and to expand the proportion of the population included in "we the people."

And by the way, Tony, morality (in its broader sense, not the narrow fundamentalist sense) has a great deal to do with the our founding documents and their development. The whole concept of unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a moral position. George III was wrong because his actions were immoral, not because he lacked the legal right or power to do what he did. Once again, you and Cheney are on the wrong side of history. Sorry.

Those are good points you make there. About the direction of the Constitution's historical development toward more empowerment of the people, and also about King George and the question of legitimate government.

For the record Mike I am not happy that 4000 soldierrs have dies and don't wish for an others to die either as you seem to think. I have close friends there and would like them to all come home and I don't know what constitutes a finish. I have spoken to people who are there fighting and hear a much different story than we typically hear in the media. They see more good than is reported to us and arewilling and happy to sacrifice for us.

Jackie, I never thought you wanted more soldiers killed over there. I'm just wondering if you've really thought through your positions.

You didn't answer my question - can you define just what needs to happen before the job is "finished"? Is it finished whenever the President says it is? What if it's a different President, with different views about the "war" (occupation, actually)?

Gail,

I don't think the picture is "chilling," I think this mosaic is as disrespectful as using the pictures of almost 3,000 WTC, Pentagon, and Flight 93 victims to create an image of Osama Bin Laden laughing. I think anyone who views the mosaic as "somber" or otherwise serious, is confusing their feelings with "disturbed." I think using a mosaic of people who have died at the hand of violence beyond their control, in order to promote a political agenda or even as a way to express feelings, is nothing short of repulsive.

I intrerpret the "art" as depicting Bush and McCain finding the horrors of war humorous or entertaining. Does the idiot who created the image know that, unlike Clinton, who ran to Canada to avoid the draft, McCain and Bush both SERVED their country by submitting to the draft? McCain was injured and held as a POW in another nonsensical war, but do you hear him complaining like Kerry did? Kerry wasn't even hurt. (Admittedly, Bush never left the lower 48, as far as I know.)

Our soldiers sign up--voluntarily--with the knowledge that they may end up laying down their lives so we can remain free. They do so with the hope that they won't be sent to a Vietnam or Iraq situation, but they go anyway. Once there, they make the best of it while the Sean Penns, Susan Sarandons, and Nico Pitneys of the world do their best to make soldiers feel like worthless pawns.

I feel that this artist owes the family members of every one of those 4000 deceased soldiers a humble apology. I find the mosaic even more offensive than a Maplethorpe image of some nude model with some object stuffed into his/her orifice.

BTW, I hope Pitney knows he's not the first to use this medium; Michael Moore already did. That makes Pitney an unoriginal, rude, disgusting copy-cat who uses tracing paper-- instead of a true artist.

"Our soldiers sign up--voluntarily--with the knowledge that they may end up laying down their lives so we can remain free."

Exactly. Which is even more reason not to squander those precious lives on a mis-guided war of choice. Our invasion and occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with our freedom.