RE: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/us/politics/11cheney.html?_r=1&hpw
His name sounds like a title character leftover from a gay bondage superhero porn that went way over budget.
He rides saddle back with Karl "Messenger of God" Rove, like the ambiguously gay duo back to the future part two. Thet work to guarantee that Cheney's own gay daughter never gets to marry. They proliferate a notion of American morality viz a viz the legal eradication of "same marriage."
Daddy makes up for little Mary Cheney's troubles with the promise of a fat inheritance courtesy, no doubt, of Halliburton whose board he sat on prior to his position as VP of the United States of America. As VP, Cheney awarded some phat oil contracts in Iraq to this company despite the obvious conflict of interest. But there's was no time for Halliburton-gate in times of war, much less those that no no end.
Of course, who can forget this all occured following invasion of Iraq on the threat of a hoax that Dick Cheney perpetuated; to this day, we have not found a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, much less one that presents a clear and present danger to the United States of America. Nonetheless, Dick Cheney advanced a policy in Iraq made America, by definition, a terrorist nation. I wonder if Dick Cheney chuckled to himself late at night at how easy re-branding and marketing terrorism can be in America; "pre-emptive strike" isn't even that catchy of a campaign. But I guess catchiness isn't necessary when you have the federal budget, degrees of legitimacy, and the media at your disposal.
If it weren't enough to simply fight terror with terror, Vice President Dick Cheney then took unprecedented action to authorize internationally illegal interrogation techniques against prisoners of war that the Geneva conventions define as torture. He then led a similar semantics quelling campaign to redefine torture in America under the less emotionally inciting banner of "advanced interrogation techniques." Again, catchiness means little in marketing campaigns with limitless channels of distribution and the federal budget.
Today, in defiance of his own questionable definition of patriotism, Dick Cheney has become the de-facto leader of a campaign against President Obama. This is nothing short of a concentrated campaign discredit President Obama's authority as the leader of the free world and continue the fear-mongering that he orchestrated from behind the curtains of President George W. Bush as if America were Oz and he himself is the great and powerful wizard hereof.
(Somewhere between then and now, W realized that he had had been fooled too often by the old gas guzzlin' fart he appointed Vice President. W grew a brain somewhere and has since teamed up with Bill Clinton to give speaches domestically; internationally he triest to make it up to Canada here and there for a solo gig.)
Meanwhile, the Dickmeister continues to talk. In fact, he talks more now than he ever did when he ran the country. He's like the micro-machine guy back in the 80's only he's talking about more than toy cars. He's actually attempting to sabotage a sitting President who's doing a far better job of managing America in 100 days than old Dicky and his great and powerful President could manage in 2,920 days.
Unfortunately because of unacceptable behind-closed-doors policies like torture and terrorism, Dick Cheney's prophecy could well be of the self-fulfilling variety. I think even Cheney himself underestimated President Obama's ability to advance hope and change as quickly as he has. But America is not in the clear, and we should be ready to unite as a nation behind our President as he undertakes the necessary measures to restore America position as a nation of diplomacy and high moral standard internationally.
I find it hard to believe that Dick Cheney is sabotaging anything… He has not motivation. He has done more than most anyone ever has... The reality is your too young or too stupid to reflect on 9/11 or about 100 other host spots world wide that terror reigns. Bush was stupid, but he was not YOUR enemy. He triedn, in his way, to protect YOU!
ReplyDeleteDo us all a favor, when your “chickens” come home to roost, please sign up as a human shield against terrorist weapons. Take your rainbow and teddy bear and stand in the front. You'll last as long as it takes for terrorists to get to you.
Here’s another Dick for you… Dick Durbin… telling it how your party is owned by the banks you supposedly are playing “tough with” in your make believe sand box called the Democratic party: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/30/ownership/
So much for Obama’s strong policy….on anything other than wealth redistribution.
SO what should we fight terrorism with? Rainbows and teddy bears?
Beginning in 2002, Nancy Pelosi and other key Democrats (as well as Republicans) on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were thoroughly, and repeatedly, briefed on the CIA's covert antiterror interrogation programs. They did nothing to stop such activities, when they weren't fully sanctioning them. If they now decide the tactics they heard about then amount to abuse, then by their own logic they themselves are complicit. Let's review the history the political class would prefer to forget.
ReplyDeleteIf Congress wanted to kill this program, all it had to do was withhold funding. And if Democrats thought it was illegal or really found the CIA's activities so heinous, one of them could have made a whistle-blowing floor statement under the protection of the Constitution's speech and debate clause. They'd have broken their secrecy oaths and jeopardized national security, sure. But if they believed that Bush policies were truly criminal, didn't they have a moral obligation to do so? In any case, the inevitable media rapture over their anti-Bush defiance would have more than compensated.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120464870255997.html