Cheney Upset That Obama Respects Other World Leaders

November 24, 2009 at 7:44 am | Posted in American politics | 5 Comments

The former vice president is an idiot and can go fuck himself.

Let Dick Cheney Stay on the TV

August 30, 2009 at 5:52 pm | Posted in American politics | 2 Comments

Keep him in the news. Doesn’t matter what the topic is. Let him be the speaker for the Republicans.

A Stinging Rebuke of Cheney and Rice by Richard Clarke

May 31, 2009 at 11:52 am | Posted in American politics | Leave a comment

Well said dude.

Yes, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice may have been surprised by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — but it was because they had not listened. And their surprise led them to adopt extreme counterterrorism techniques — but it was because they rejected, without analysis, the tactics the Clinton administration had used. The measures they uncritically adopted, which they simply assumed were the best available, were in fact unnecessary and counterproductive.

“I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities,” Cheney said in his recent speech. But this defense does not stand up. The Bush administration’s response actually undermined the principles and values America has always stood for in the world, values that should have survived this traumatic event. The White House thought that 9/11 changed everything. It may have changed many things, but it did not change the Constitution, which the vice president, the national security adviser and all of us who were in the White House that tragic day had pledged to protect and preserve.

Well said.

Cheney: “We’re Not Going To Win This Fight By Turning The Other Cheek”

February 4, 2009 at 10:51 am | Posted in American politics | 1 Comment

Dick Cheney is making a good case to be considered the anti-Christ.

Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”

Actually, protecting this country’s security is really not a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business. Anyone who thinks so should not be put in charge of protecting this country, frankly.

And how does a believer in Christ reconcile what this man says about protecting this country, that we can’t do it by turning the other cheek (which is what Christ taught those who expressed to be followers of His). At what point do you no longer actually follow Christ? If you no longer follow Christ’s teachings, can you call yourself a Christian any longer?

Dick Cheney is A Man Gone Insane

June 29, 2008 at 8:47 am | Posted in American politics | Leave a comment

Dick Cheney ‘tried to block North Korea nuclear deal.’

Vice President Dick Cheney fought furiously to block efforts by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to strike a controversial US compromise deal with North Korea over the communist state’s nuclear programme, the Telegraph has learned.

“The exchanges between Cheney’s office and Rice’s people at State got very testy. But ultimately Condi had the President’s ear and persuaded him that his legacy would be stronger if they reached a deal with Pyongyang,” said a Pentagon adviser who was briefed on the battle.

This man is insane. And he is still in a position of power and influence for a few more months!

The worst part about this is that the only thing that convinced George W. Bush, who also is insane, to go with this deal is because “his legacy would be stronger if they reached a deal with Pyongyang.” That’s the reason the deal happened. So George W. Bush could feel better about his legacy. The man is insane!

These men should have been impeached in 2003. How much more do we wish to see them ruin America?

Quote of the Day – Dick Cheney

August 16, 2007 at 1:07 pm | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, Cheney, Iran, Middle East, secret combinations | Leave a comment

Well well well, it seems before 9/11 Dick Cheney actually made some sense, or at least did not let the delusions that were to come after 9/11 get in the way of sound thinking. Here he is in 1998 on sanctions on Iran:

[O]ur sanctions policy oftentimes generates unanticipated consequences. It puts us in a position where a part of our government is pursuing objectives that are at odds with other objectives that the United States has with respect to a particular region.

An example that comes immediately to mind has to do with efforts to develop the resources of the former Soviet Union in the Caspian Sea area. It is a region rich in oil and gas. Unfortunately, Iran is sitting right in the middle of the area and the United States has declared unilateral economic sanctions against that country. As a result, American firms are prohibited from dealing with Iran and find themselves cut out of the action, both in terms of opportunities that develop with respect to Iran itself, and also with respect to our ability to gain access to Caspian resources. Iran is not punished by this decision. There are numerous oil and gas development companies from other countries that are now aggressively pursuing opportunities to develop those resources. That development will proceed, but it will happen without American participation. The most striking result of the government’s use of unilateral sanctions in the region is that only American companies are prohibited from operating there.

Another good example of how our sanctions policy oftentimes gets in the way of our other interests occurred in the fall of 1997 when Saddam Hussein was resisting U.N. weapons inspections. I happened to be in the Gulf region during that period of time. Administration officials in the area were trying to get Arab members of the coalition that executed operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1991 to allow U.S. military forces to be based on their territory. They wanted that capability in the event it was necessary to take military action against Iraq in order to get them to honor the UN resolutions. Our friends in the region cited a number of reasons for not complying with our request. They were concerned with the fragile nature of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, which was stalled. But they also had fundamental concerns about our policy toward Iran. We had been trying to force the governments in the region to adhere to an anti-Iranian policy, and our views raised questions in their mind about the wisdom of U.S. leadership. They cited it as an example of something they thought was unwise, and that they should not do.

So, what effect does this have on our standing in the region? I take note of the fact that all of the Arab countries we approached, with the single exception of Kuwait, rejected our request to base forces on their soil in the event military action was required against Iraq. As if that weren’t enough, most of them boycotted the economic conference that the United States supported in connection with the peace process that was hosted in Qatar during that period of time. Then, having rejected participation in that conference, they all went to Tehran and attended the Islamic summit hosted by the Iranians. The nation that’s isolated in terms of our sanctions policy in that part of the globe is not Iran. It is the United States. And the fact that we have tried to pressure governments in the region to adopt a sanctions policy that they clearly are not interested in pursuing has raised doubts in the minds of many of our friends about the overall wisdom and judgment of U.S. policy in the area.

Let me repeat what he just said again, “The nation that’s isolated in terms of our sanctions policy in that part of the globe is not Iran. It is the United States.” Wow, what the hell happened to this guy after 9/11? Why did his wisdom go the way of the dodo bird?

Dick Cheney Goes Around President to Start War With Iran

May 25, 2007 at 1:15 pm | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, Cheney, conservatives, corruption, Iran, violence, War | 4 Comments

Well, we knew this day was coming. Cheney is apparently disappointed with Bush for going the diplomatic route with Iran and is going around the president to force the president’s hand. This is from Steve Clemons who is deeply connected in the world of Washington. He states:

There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.

On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney’s team and acolytes — who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.

The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice’s efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel.

However, the Department of Defense and national intelligence sector are also preparing for hot conflict. They believe that they need to in order to convince Iran’s various power centers that the military option does exist.

But this is worrisome. The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. The person in Iran who most wants a conflict is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Quds Force would be big winners in a conflict as well — as the political support that both have inside Iran has been flagging.

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney’s national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush’s tack towards Condoleezza Rice’s diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an “end run strategy” around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney’s team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran’s nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

There are many other components of the complex game plan that this Cheney official has been kicking around Washington. The official has offered this commentary to senior staff at AEI and in lunch and dinner gatherings which were to be considered strictly off-the-record, but there can be little doubt that the official actually hopes that hawkish conservatives and neoconservatives share this information and then rally to this point of view. This official is beating the brush and doing what Joshua Muravchik has previously suggested — which is to help establish the policy and political pathway to bombing Iran.

The zinger of this information is the admission by this Cheney aide that Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice, Bob Gates, Michael Hayden and McConnell have sculpted.

According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the “right decision” when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President’s hands.

On Tuesday evening, i spoke with a former top national intelligence official in this Bush administration who told me that what I was investigating and planned to report on regarding Cheney and the commentary of his aide was “potentially criminal insubordination” against the President. I don’t believe that the White House would take official action against Cheney for this agenda-mongering around Washington — but I do believe that the White House must either shut Cheney and his team down and give them all garden view offices so that they can spend their days staring out their windows with not much to do or expect some to begin to think that Bush has no control over his Vice President.

It is not that Cheney wants to bomb Iran and Bush doesn’t, it is that Cheney is saying that Bush is making a mistake and thus needs to have the choices before him narrowed.

As some of Mr. Clemons’ readers note, that is usually called a coup, and would be in violation of American law. But Cheney has never been one to really care what the law states. He wants his war with Iran, and he will damned well get it.

Provo Businesses Blacklist BYU Students Who Protested Cheney

April 29, 2007 at 7:37 am | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, BYU, Cheney, freedom, Mormon, Religion | 12 Comments

I’m not surprised, but Provo businesses are blacklisting students that participated in a protest of Cheney, courtesy of Joe Vogel:

Now BYU Alternative Commencement has received an email from a local businesswoman named Denise Harman, who claims that all BYU students participating in activities against Dick Cheney are being tracked by local businesses. “Many businesses are noting the names involved,” she says.

Why are business tracking the names of soon to be graduating students? “You are being tagged as trouble makers and added to massive ‘Do Not Hire’ lists,” says Denise Harman, who hires hundreds of graduates every year.

She adds curtly, “Just thought you should know that activities have consequences.”

Indeed they do. How utterly childish. Shows you that residents of Provo have a stronger allegiance to one man than they do to democracy or even free speech. I wonder, if a day comes when those protesting rules against Mormonism get blacklisted what they will say…

Darth Cheney Hides Behind the Shrubbery

April 3, 2007 at 5:17 pm | Posted in Cheney, Torture | 1 Comment

of relevance, torture and shrubbery, courtesy of Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

ARTHUR: We are looking for a shrubbery…
CRONE: Aggh! No! Never! We have no shrubberies here.
ARTHUR: If you do not tell us where we can buy a shrubbery, my friend and I will say… we will say… ‘ni’.
CRONE: Agh! Do your worst!
ARTHUR: Very well! If you will not assist us voluntarily,… ni!
CRONE: No! Never! No shrubberies!
ARTHUR: Ni!
CRONE: [cough]
ROGER THE SHRUBBER: Are you saying ‘ni’ to that old woman?
ARTHUR: Erm, yes.
ROGER: Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can ‘ni’ at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land. Nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
ARTHUR: Did you say ‘shrubberies’?
ROGER: Yes. Shrubberies are my trade. I am a shrubber. My name is Roger the Shrubber. I arrange, design, and sell shrubberies.

On Cheney and the British Withdrawal

February 21, 2007 at 1:35 pm | Posted in American politics, Cheney, Great Britain, Iraq, Military, Tony Blair | Leave a comment

Dick Cheney, the Bush administration’s worst liar, is claiming that the British are leaving because of the success they have had down in the south. Fine, okay, but as one reader on Talking Points Memo mentions, shouldn’t the British, instead of leaving Iraq, be used instead in areas where things are not going so swimmingly?

Josh, one of the arguments made by Cheney in the interview (and others such as John Howard) is that the British withdrawal is good news because it reflects improvement in the situation in the South. Well, if this is the case, then why aren’t the British troops being moved to where they are needed instead of being withdrawn? Why is nobody asking this question?

Truly, while America is escalating its forces in Baghdad, the British are leaving. Why is the Bush administration not asking the British to assist in Baghdad as well? Why are they not calling the British for what they are, “cut and runners.”

You keep hearing from right wing fools like Max Boot, Jonah Goldberg, Fred Kagan, that this is the “decisive conflict of our generation.” If that really is the case, why not harp on the British for leaving at such a critical juncture? Plus was it not Tony Blair himself who just recently said that to leave Iraq would send the wrong message to the enemy?

“If we desert the Iraqi government now, at the very time when they are building up their forces … it would be a gross dereliction of our duty,” he said.

“If we got out now, when the job wasn’t done, and simply deserted the situation, what good would that do other than to make sure that those people that support these extremists right around the world would take heart from it?” he added.

And just last month:

“For us to set an arbitrary timetable . . . would send the most disastrous signal to the people whom we are fighting in Iraq,” he said. “It is a policy that, whatever its superficial attractions may be, is deeply irresponsible.”

So what changed Mr. Blair? Just today you say the following:

“The next chapter in Basra’s history will be written by Iraqis,” Blair said.

121 Killed vs Cheney’s “Enormous Successes”

February 3, 2007 at 1:10 pm | Posted in Cheney, Iraq | Leave a comment

A while back Cheney said we were having “enormous successes” in Iraq. Meanwhile, a suicide bomber today at least 121 people and injured another 250. Enormous success, that is if you are a terrorist!

Hail To King Cheney

November 26, 2006 at 7:46 pm | Posted in American politics, Cheney, Congress, Democracy, King George | Leave a comment

Boston Globe has an excellent article that highlights Cheney’s career to show just what disdain this man has for the rule of law, the checks and balances of the Constitution and of the Congress. The sad part is that we have yet two more years to deal with this seeker of power. What do you all think? Are the fruits of his labors these past six years good for America?

Cheney: American Democracy Increases Terrorism

October 31, 2006 at 12:42 pm | Posted in American politics, Cheney, Iraq, King George, War on Terror | 2 Comments

You can’t help but feel sorry for Mr. Cheney who yet again claims that our democratic process here in America inspires terrorists to increase their attacks. Oh how he would love to have a dictatorship here in America, then terrorists wouldn’t supposedly time their attacks based on our democratic process. As Josh Marshall says:

Cheney: American democracy at fault for rising tide of Iraq violence.

Are Republicans really buying this load of crap from Cheney? Who else could be his audience?

Cheney Endorses Waterboarding

October 27, 2006 at 10:11 pm | Posted in American politics, Cheney, Torture, War on Terror | 4 Comments

Cheney calls waterboarding a detainee a “no brainer.” Huh, so….

“If Iran or Syria detained an American, Cheney is saying that it would be perfectly fine for them to hold that American’s head under water until he nearly drowns, if that’s what they think they need to do to save Iranian or Syrian lives,” said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.

Or is torture only good when Americans do it?

Cheney’s Madness

September 15, 2006 at 3:36 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

—By Stuart Carlson

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

Cheney: Incompetent Wimp

August 16, 2006 at 1:26 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Well said, Mr. Sullivan, well said!

It is my rallying cry, Mr. Sullivan. But, if it is yours, are you willing to vote for a Democrat, Mr. Sullivan? That’s the only way you’ll get rid of Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld.

Cheney’ World: Violence, Anger, and Hatred

June 1, 2006 at 11:53 am | Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Mr. Arkin gets into detail about the Haditha incident and the new “core values” training that the Pentagon is forcing all the troops in Iraq to take. Mr. Arkin makes a good observation:

In Baghdad, the U.S. military has announced that it will interrupt the killing to conduct across-the-board “core values” training. This is a hapless and hollow gesture.

Haditha either represents an exceptional incident perpetrated by the rage of a platoon of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines and as such does not necessitate a sensitivity class for the American military at large or it represents a hidden side of Operation Iraqi Freedom, where civilian deaths are all too common and accountability on a day-to-day basis doesn’t exist.

and much like in Afghanistan, shown so clearly by the accident that killed 3 people and the aftermath with American soldiers firing into the crowds and killing an additional 4, so in Iraq, Americans are abrasive and violent:

The incident in Hadithah hasn’t lost the war, nor even undermined the hearts and minds in the country. The assumption on the “street” in Iraq is already that the U.S. military is trigger happy, that it is already indiscriminately killing civilians, that it is unaccountable. Iraq’s own ambassador in the United States tells the story of one of his 21 year old cousins being killed in cold blood by Marines in the very town of Haditha during a search of the family home.

This is Cheney’s world. Violence and anger and hate.

Is this what America wants?

Cheney is at the Heart of All America’s Foreign Policy Problems

June 1, 2006 at 9:35 am | Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

yet again Mr. Cheney is against talking to Iran even though that is really the only viable option. Yet again, Cheney proves just how terrible he really is, just how little he understands of foreign policy. Cheney is at the heart of all America’s foreign policy problems. He IS America’s most pressing problem. But the only way he will ever be removed is if his boss is removed.

Is This The Flowering Peaceful Iraq That Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush Envisioned?

May 7, 2006 at 9:42 am | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Targeted Killings Surge in Baghdad

More Iraqi civilians were killed in Baghdad during the first three months of this year than at any time since the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime — at least 3,800, many of them found hogtied and shot execution-style.

Others were strangled, electrocuted, stabbed, garroted or hanged. Some died in bombings. Many bore signs of torture such as bruises, drill holes, burn marks, gouged eyes or severed limbs.

Every day, about 40 bodies arrive at the central Baghdad morgue, an official said. The numbers demonstrate a shift in the nature of the violence, which increasingly has targeted both sides of the country’s SunniShiite sectarian divide.

In the previous three years, the killings were more random, impersonal. Violence came mostly in the form of bombs wielded by the Sunni Arab-led insurgency that primarily targeted the coalition forces and the Shiite majority: balls of fire and shrapnel tearing through the bodies of those riding the wrong bus, shopping at the wrong market or standing in the wrong line.

Now the killings are systematic, personal. Masked gunmen storm into homes, and the victims — the majority of them Sunnis — are never again seen alive.

Such killings now claim nine times more lives than car bombings, according to figures provided by a high-ranking U.S. military official, who released them only on the condition of anonymity.

What’s the phrase that the Savior used in the New Testament? “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Violence, death, torture—-these are the fruits of the Bush administration.

Torture: The Legacy of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld

May 4, 2006 at 6:32 am | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

I agree with Andrew Sullivan who states this in his blog:

That’s Amnesty International’s conclusion. The full report is here. Read it, if you still doubt the reality. The evidence, I am ashamed and saddened to say, is overwhelming. Whatever else this administration has done, whatever other mistakes it has made, this abandonment of long-standing American honor and decency in the military is an unforgivable offense. It is an attack on the meaning of America by its own president. It must be forever attached to his name and to that of his vice-president. The stain is deep. And it has stained us all.

The names of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld will forever be linked to torture as long as my fingers can type, my voice can still speak, and my body have breath.

The decency of America is lost, maybe forever, with the torture of its prisoners.

Why more Americans are not shocked and alarmed and out with their pictchforks and torches screaming at the local magistrate may be due to the amount of torture Americans watch on TV on various shows. It has been very hard for me to watch Alias, a great show, a wonderfully scripted entertaining show, yet one that, with each new season, added more and more torture scenes. Season three was full of torture scene after torture scene. Smallville had a torture scene where Lex Luthor was in China being tortured. Law and Order and those kinds of shows show violent situation after violent situation, making viewers feel nothing but wrath toward the offenders, removing any humanistic feelings toward them. Our movies are violent. Take the new MI: III. Here you get commercials showing violent scene after violent scene….but…..what’s the plot of the story? I know Philip Seymore Hoffman plays the bad guy….but….why is he the bad guy? What does the bad guy want, except apparently to torture and violate Mr. Hunt? What is the motive of the bad guy? What is the story essentially? You can’t tell from the previews. All you get is a preview of the action, as if that is enough to lure one into the movie.

Is this what we are becoming? A nation that is “past feeling” when it comes to violence? A nation that can easily disassociate itself from humanistic feelings towards others? A nation that can, at a whim, at a moment’s notice, break off human contact with another human and let him suffer?

We are better than this. We just need to remember. The worth of souls is great in the sight of God. We are ALL His children, even “terrorists.”

We cannot continue down a path in which we are no longer concerned about the lives of ALL. Maybe we never were concerned about the lives of all. Maybe this is the real America, that really only cares about its own interests. If that is the case, then America has lost its way.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.