PDA

View Full Version : Vice President Dick Cheney A great American



subroc
10-24-2009, 10:15 AM
Vice President Dick Cheney – A great American

Did he say the current President is dithering?

Have a listen about 12:45 in.

BTW lefties, here is an opportunity to hear what the man says instead of sound bites.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URXg53pqpHw

dnf777
10-24-2009, 10:41 AM
When I read the title of this thread, my first thought was it should be moved to the "Joke Room".

Dick Cheney publically stated on the record that we do not condone or support torture, and then cast the abu gharib enlisted soldiers to prison sentences, proclaiming them as "a few bad apples."

He then not only admitted to, but bragged about the "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as those used at our prisons.

No leader should ever slink away from their command decisions, and rest the blame with those who carried them out! That man disgraced the institutions he swore to uphold, and as a veteran, I will never forgive him for what he did to our troops.

There were people relieved of commands and enlisted troops court-martialed and imprisoned for carrying out his directives, all the while he was denying he knew anything about it.

subroc
10-24-2009, 10:52 AM
Part of your position lies is the question, what is torture when discussing enhanced interrogation techniques?

Abu Gharib was not part of the enhanced interrogation techniques program. It has been repeatedly illustrated that the actions of some bad and foolish individuals along with a lack of oversight is what constituted what occurred there. If you wish to characterize it as something else like a systemic problem, it is ok with me, but it is not the truth.

Vice President Dick Cheney A great American.

Pete
10-24-2009, 11:42 AM
Stacking up a bunch of necked guys and making them wear leashes is not torture.
Its an everyday occurance in san fransisco. People come from miles around there to join in the party

Pete

dnf777
10-24-2009, 12:15 PM
Stacking up a bunch of necked guys and making them wear leashes is not torture.
Its an everyday occurance in san fransisco. People come from miles around there to join in the party

Pete

Might be your thing, but it ain't mine. :)

Far, far worse took place. Its in the public record, Dick Cheney even says so. I would recommend you ask Mancow (not a flaming liberal) whether torture occured under our watch.

We are better than that. The world looks up to us, for the moral standard that we uphold. That's the country I grew up in and defended.

And let me say this seemingly contradictory statement: If, for whatever reason you MUST resort to these tactics.....do it like we used to ....secretly! Don't let your inflated ego allow you to brag about it publically on conservative talk shows for God's sake!!!!

I probably won't convince you that Dick Cheney is a lying scoundrel that set this country on its heels with his failed policy he pushed through his puppet boy.....and I can promise you that you won't convince me that he's some kind of hero. (except to draft dodgers and deferment hogs for showin' them how it's done!) So we should probably just agree to disagree on this one.

subroc
10-24-2009, 12:23 PM
Fair enough, we agree to disagree.

BTW, did you view the speech?

Hew
10-24-2009, 01:24 PM
I probably won't convince you that Dick Cheney is a lying scoundrel that set this country on its heels with his failed policy he pushed through his puppet boy.....
Do you even remember all the other posts you've previously written stating that you always convey respect to the president, that you use their proper title and never resort to childish name calling? Probably not, since I'm sure you also don't remember all the posts you've written about how much you detest hypocrisy and hypocrites.

dnf777
10-24-2009, 04:08 PM
I didn't call him any names besides "Dick Cheney", which IS his name. I said I probably wouldn't convince someone that he was a lying scoundrel. "Convince" is the action verb, "Dick Cheney is a lying scoundrel" was the operative of that action verb, not a statement being attested to in the sentence.

Jeez, I hated grammar when I was a kid. Please figure this stuff out on your own, so you quit your nagging accusations. They're very tiresome. You remind me of the smart kid in class who just lurks and waits to criticize everytime you think there's an opportunity.

Subroc,
I got through most of it, but have a house full of a sick wife and 3 kids, and a wicked "honey do" list! :(
Believe it or not, I was somewhat of a fan of Mr. Cheney's, during his stint as SecDef. If you recall his speech defending Mr. Bush's decision NOT to invade Baghdad after GulfWar I, he articulated perfectly the disasters that would befall such a strategy, without an exit plan, or nation-building plan, or a strategy to deal with insurgency. He hit the nail square on the head, then flip-flopped 180 degrees after becoming VP. He lost my respect after that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

subroc
10-24-2009, 05:40 PM
I watched the vid. I am not sure what that has to do with an action that takes place in the shadow of 9-11.

YardleyLabs
10-24-2009, 05:50 PM
Vice President Dick Cheney A great American

Did he say the current President is dithering?

Have a listen about 12:45 in.

BTW lefties, here is an opportunity to hear what the man says instead of sound bites.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URXg53pqpHw
I wasn't going to listen for two reasons: first, as a few here like to mention over and over, Bush/Cheney ain't in the WH any more, and second, because I have spent more hours than I would have wished listening to Cheney speak and, despite having believed him originally to be one of the bests parts of the GWB administration, came to believe that he was one of the scariest and most dangerous men to ever serve in his position.

Despite these reservations, I decided that it was only fair, in the interest of discussion, to go ahead and listen. I am sure you would do the same if I suggested that you listen to a liberal speaking for 30 minutes.;-) My take away is as follows:

Around the 3:40 mark he talks about the importance of maintaining commitments made by prior administrations. How is that reconciled with the rejection of the Kyoto and Land Mine treaties negotiated by Clinton and rejected by Bush? How does it relate to the cancellation of the ABM treaty in place since 1972? How does it relate to a unilateral reinterpretation of the Geneva Convention? In its first years the Bush administration totally redefined our diplomatic posture in the world by unwinding and disavowing numerous international agreements and methods of operation with which it disagreed. How does that improve of ability to be a reliable partner in international accords? And yet, the abandonment of mssile defense agreements negotiated but never ratified by the Bush administration is a breech of good faith by Obama. The logic escapes me.

Cheney's comments on the obvious dangers of Putin ring a little hollow coming years after the Bush administration declared Putin to be one of its greatest friends (Contrast Bush's declarations of friedship in 2001 with Cheney's comments at 5:20 concerning those who tried placating Putin). Add that to the fact that the manner in which the US invaded Iraq, in a move reportedly architected in large part by Cheney and Rumsfeld, provided political cover to Putin in his invasion of Georgia.

At about 5:40, Cheney describes Iran's flawed election as part of what the Obama administration "received" in return for its abandonment of the anti missile agreements with Poland and the Czechs. Interesting reasoning since the election happened long before the change in policy on the missile agreement.

At about 8:40, Cheney says that unless Iran fears real consequences from its lack of cooperation, it will continue to do as it wishes. He doesn't mention, somehow, that a primary reason for Iran's ascendancy in the Middle East has been the manner in which the US invaded Iraq and misjudged to cost and consequences of our efforts at regime change including proving how incapable we would be of initiating any similar efforts against Iran.

Beginning around minute 11, Cheney begins attacking the Obama administration for waffling on Afghanistan implying that there had be widespred agreement that the Bush administration policies in Afghanistan were viewed positively by almost all. He attacks Pbama for not agreeing quickly to adding 40,000 additional troops while ignoring the fact that for years the bush administration starved tohe war effort in Afghanistan to support its folly in Iraq, adding troops only during the last year. He ignores that fact that the number of troops in Afghanistan has been tripled from what it was under his watch and acts as if nothing has been done. At about the 13 minute mark he begins attacking the administration for its criticisms of Bush policies on Afghanistan and its failure to conduct a full scale policy review. What is his response? The Bush administration did such a review in the fall of 2008, after seven years of war, andturned over recommendations including the counter insurgency approaches now under consideration. What happened during the prior seven years? Talk about waffling....

Around 14:40, Cheney describes the fact that we were invlved in supporting the mujuhadin in Afghanistan against the Soviets -- what Cheney describes as a successful strategy. He then popints out the negative consequences when we walked away from Afghanistan (not mentioning who was president when we did so;-)) and including the rise of Bin Ladin, who he doesn't mention as among those we previously supported with our "successful" strategies before.

15:35, Cheney returns to his defense of torture. Somehow that is not a commitment violation....

18:40 he begins his complaints about criticism of the administration and the slander and demagoguery of the left. Would that the left were the only ones doing that...

22:30 -- "For all that we've lost in the conflict, we have never lost our moral bearings..." I respectfully disagree. I believe Cheney lost his long ago by engaing in just the form of moral relativism that in other circumstances he would decry.

dnf777
10-24-2009, 05:52 PM
I watched the vid. I am not sure what that has to do with an action that takes place in the shadow of 9-11.

There was MORE justification to invade and topple Saddam's regime after the first Gulf War, where he was a clear aggressor, unlike in 2001. The EXACT events that Mr. Cheney warned would happen, HAVE happened, and we are still occupying Iraq with what,130,000 troops yet, and Mr. Obama seems in no hurry to get out.

K G
10-24-2009, 07:10 PM
I didn't call him any names besides "Dick Cheney", which IS his name. I said I probably wouldn't convince someone that he was a lying scoundrel. "Convince" is the action verb, "Dick Cheney is a lying scoundrel" was the operative of that action verb, not a statement being attested to in the sentence.

Jeez, I hated grammar when I was a kid. Please figure this stuff out on your own, so you quit your nagging accusations. They're very tiresome. You remind me of the smart kid in class who just lurks and waits to criticize everytime you think there's an opportunity.

And you're a whiner who's also the pot calling the kettle black....:rolleyes:

Nannie nannie poo poo regards,

kg

dnf777
10-24-2009, 07:18 PM
And you're a whiner who's also the pot calling the kettle black....:rolleyes:

Nannie nannie poo poo regards,

kg
Subroc and I were politely agreeing to disagree, when out of the shadows I'm jumped on with personal attacks, yet once again. I don't mean to sound like I'm whining, but it's just getting old. If I wanted to hear personal attacks in lieu of issues, I'd tune in Ann Coulter. For the most part, this is a great place to hear opposing points of view and banter issues back and forth, with a few recurring exceptions.

On to better discussions,
dave

Buzz
10-24-2009, 07:56 PM
I didn't call him any names besides "Dick Cheney", which IS his name.

I think Hew was referring to the puppet boy remark. Personally I like that one a lot.

Maybe it's more appropriate to say puppet boy President G. W. Bush... :p

M&K's Retrievers
10-24-2009, 08:42 PM
I think Hew was referring to the puppet boy remark. Personally I like that one a lot.

Maybe it's more appropriate to say puppet boy President G. W. Bush... :p

I think it blows! Disrespectful and uncalled for. What goes around comes around.:rolleyes:

Hew
10-24-2009, 10:39 PM
I didn't call him any names besides "Dick Cheney", which IS his name. I said I probably wouldn't convince someone that he was a lying scoundrel. "Convince" is the action verb, "Dick Cheney is a lying scoundrel" was the operative of that action verb, not a statement being attested to in the sentence.

Jeez, I hated grammar when I was a kid. Please figure this stuff out on your own, so you quit your nagging accusations. They're very tiresome. You remind me of the smart kid in class who just lurks and waits to criticize everytime you think there's an opportunity.

I was referring to your "puppet boy" slur, Tiger.

Speaking of being reminded of someone else....you should be required to preference your posts with, "Well you know, Sammy...."

dnf777
10-25-2009, 05:50 AM
I have noticed you haven't addressed any of the issues of his unethical actions towards the troops, or his 180 flip-flop on invading Iraq. Typical Fox-type response. If you have NOTHING to say, you attack....personal attacks work best. Are you related to Rove?

If you look at my posts, you will see I refer to presidents properly 99% of the time. Puppet boy refers to the fact he didn't run things, a fact well supported by his former corporate board members. (House of Bush, House of Saud, Unger 2004) So puppet boy slipped out, BFD. Truth is an absolute defense of slander! But I still try to show respect for the office, and succeed almost all the time.

Enjoy your sandwich! :razz::razz::razz:

Pete
10-25-2009, 08:08 AM
Bush was indeed a puppet so there is nothing wrong with calling him a puppet.
Most polititians serve themselves and the people who send them the most money.

I see nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.
If politians didnt affect american lives then it wouldnt be no big deal.
There is no doubt in my mind that most are liars,spinners and treasonist bastards,,
But because they wear a 3 piece suit and smile in front of the camera we think they are so wonderful and would never intentionally screw the people who put them where they are. Its all a fun filled exciting global game they play.
Few have the character to do the right thing,and they cover their intent by blaming things on others politicians. And most do this.its a massive web.
So I have no shame in calling them exactly what they are. I dont care how much they smile and appear in front of the camera.

These people lack integraty and character and are easily swayed by lobbiests.

There is only one reason people spends hundreds of millions of dollars to obtain a 4 year job which pays only a few hundred thousand a year.
They desire prestige and power.

I can guantee they have no idea whats good for us. They have played this game so long they have forgotten why they do what they do.
Its not name calling if its true. Its just a discriptive way of defining what you see.

Pete

Hew
10-25-2009, 09:04 AM
I have noticed you haven't addressed any of the issues of his unethical actions towards the troops, or his 180 flip-flop on invading Iraq.
Perhaps you've also noticed that I don't address most of the buffonery you type. It would be a full-time job trying to keep up with all the erroneous information you spew out; much less trying to rebut your soup sandwich (as in "f'ed up like a..."), half-baked opinions that revolve around your half-baked facts. You're like a Cliff Clavin version of a Chatty Cathy doll that pulls its own string over and over and over and...

Bob Gutermuth
10-25-2009, 09:50 AM
Mr Cheney would have been a far better POTUS than that marxist Osama, its a shame he didn't run for the office.

dnf777
10-25-2009, 10:38 AM
Perhaps you've also noticed that I don't address most of the buffonery you type. It would be a full-time job trying to keep up with all the erroneous information you spew out; much less trying to rebut your soup sandwich (as in "f'ed up like a..."), half-baked opinions that revolve around your half-baked facts. You're like a Cliff Clavin version of a Chatty Cathy doll that pulls its own string over and over and over and...

Right back at ya big boy.

You're what's wrong with politics in this country today. "My way or character smears and diversions"

But hey, it worked for 8 years!

You weren't even a part of this discussion between two people who can have civil debate, you just took your school--boy attitude opportunity to attack because you can't have a mature discussion.

Feel free to delete or ignore me from now on....then it will be a mutual relationship.

Before I stoop much lower and reach your levels, I'm outta this one!

Martin
10-25-2009, 01:04 PM
Bush was indeed a puppet so there is nothing wrong with calling him a puppet.
Most polititians serve themselves and the people who send them the most money.

I see nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.
If politians didnt affect american lives then it wouldnt be no big deal.
There is no doubt in my mind that most are liars,spinners and treasonist bastards,,
But because they wear a 3 piece suit and smile in front of the camera we think they are so wonderful and would never intentionally screw the people who put them where they are. Its all a fun filled exciting global game they play.
Few have the character to do the right thing,and they cover their intent by blaming things on others politicians. And most do this.its a massive web.
So I have no shame in calling them exactly what they are. I dont care how much they smile and appear in front of the camera.

These people lack integraty and character and are easily swayed by lobbiests.

There is only one reason people spends hundreds of millions of dollars to obtain a 4 year job which pays only a few hundred thousand a year.
They desire prestige and power.

I can guantee they have no idea whats good for us. They have played this game so long they have forgotten why they do what they do.
Its not name calling if its true. Its just a discriptive way of defining what you see.

Pete

Very nicely said!!!!!!!

Martin

Roger Perry
10-26-2009, 07:10 AM
Mr Cheney would have been a far better POTUS than that marxist Osama, its a shame he didn't run for the office.
republicans lost the election bad enough as it was, did you want to see them go down in a landslide with cheney as a candidate?

cotts135
10-26-2009, 08:38 AM
When all is said and done and history looks back on VP Cheney, the consensus is that this one individual has done more harm than any VP in history. This guy has been wrong on almost every issue he has weighed into. Why does anyone even listen to him anymore?
From declaring We will be seen as liberators in Iraq(Sept 14 2003), or "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." (August 26 2002) or ''I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."(June 1 2005,) or my favorite Waterboarding is just a dunk in the water (Oct 29 2006)he has proven time and time again that he has no forsight into any future event and his worldview is narrow and based on fantasy.
If a persons worth and character is based on his actions instead of his rhetoric, which it should, then this guy in my opinion is a complete failure. His tough guy talk on war does not sync well with his attempts at numerous deferments during the Vietnam war and his many proclamations of future events have been proven wrong to many times to mention This is not someone I respect or trust.

code3retrievers
10-26-2009, 08:45 AM
Right back at ya big boy.

You're what's wrong with politics in this country today. "My way or character smears and diversions"

But hey, it worked for 8 years!

You weren't even a part of this discussion between two people who can have civil debate, you just took your school--boy attitude opportunity to attack because you can't have a mature discussion.

Feel free to delete or ignore me from now on....then it will be a mutual relationship.

Before I stoop much lower and reach your levels, I'm outta this one!


You just did everything you whined about. Nice

dnf777
10-26-2009, 09:14 AM
You just did everything you whined about. Nice

I know. And I apologize for that. That's why I'm outta this discussion, except to apologize for stooping to those same levels.

Too nice of a day in Western Pa to stare at a computer screen anyway!

Julie R.
10-26-2009, 11:13 AM
Famous Last Words:


So we should probably just agree to disagree on this one.



Before I stoop much lower and reach your levels, I'm outta this one!



On to better discussions,
dave


That's why I'm outta this discussion, except to apologize for stooping to those same levels.


And all these empty protestations are from ONE thread! Maybe that should be, dnf777 Has to Have the Last Word.

dnf777
10-26-2009, 11:35 AM
That's one way of looking at it Julie. The other is what I'm doing, and that is having a good laugh seeing people like you goaded into replying on something you weren't even involved with! I love seeing people resort to personal attacks and smearing, because that means they have NOTHING to add to a meaningful discussion, and they're basically "licked". That's why I *try* not to do the same, even when it would be so easy. Next time, choose a more reputable man to defend than Mr. Cheney, then you may have some merit to your arguments and won't need to resort to getting personal!

There. I fell into your cute little trap of the "last word" again! (I used to do that in grade school too!) Enjoy. :D

Julie R.
10-26-2009, 11:48 AM
Well Dave, I'm pretty sure you and I would have to agree to disagree on Cheney, and I doubt anything I said or posted would make you change your mind. Like I do on many threads on RTF, I just read it and noted who said what. And noticed you said you were done with the thread and then posted again. No less than 5 times! Might be a new record even for you, Dave. No character smear intended, my apologies if you got that out of my observation. I certainly didn't characterize any discussion or participant input as meaningless; I didn't smear anyone nor did I think I was being goaded.

Roger Perry
10-26-2009, 02:26 PM
Vice President Dick Cheney A great American

Did he say the current President is dithering?

Have a listen about 12:45 in.

BTW lefties, here is an opportunity to hear what the man says instead of sound bites.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URXg53pqpHw

U.S. tested 2 Afghan scenarios in war game

Obama and advisers evaluating exercise that used different troop levels


The Pentagon's top military officer oversaw a secret war game this month to evaluate the two primary military options that have been put forward by the Pentagon and are being weighed by the Obama administration as part of a broad-based review of the faltering Afghanistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/afghanistan.html?nav=el) war, senior military officialshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33476278/ns/politics-washington_post/#) said.
The exercise, led by Adm. Mike Mullenhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33476278/ns/politics-washington_post/#), chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, examined the likely outcome of inserting 44,000 more troops into the country to conduct a full-scale counterinsurgency effort aimed at building a stable Afghan government that can control most of the country. It also examined adding 10,000 to 15,000 more soldiers and Marines as part of an approach that the military has dubbed "counterterrorism plus."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33476278/ns/politics-washington_post/

Perhaps if Bush & Cheney had done more planning we may not be stuck in 2 wars for the last 7 years that are unwinable.