Dick Cheney: Opinion Compilation

My opinion for Dick Cheney really needs no description. He is a vile, megalomaniacal, right-wing zealot with no capability of reasonable contemplation or consideration for any other strategy than full-throttle, “Either join me or get outta my way!” This country is infinitesimally better off now that the old man is sidelined.

That said, how wonderful it is that the black-pace-makered, sinister posterboy pokes his head above the muck and mire long enough to remind everyone why Obama won on Nov. 4 before returning to his panic room to watch Fox until he perceives yet another indignity that needs addressing.

The left is like a kid in a candy store when Dick’s thin lips part to reveal his jutted lower jaw and antediluvian, borderline-schizo views. We sit aglow in front of our television screens asking, Does it get any better than this? It could, I suppose, but it most likely will not. Only Bush on his knees in tears, arms stretched to the sky, crying, “Why, oh why, Baby Jesus, am I so hated when all I did is what you tole me to do?” That would be awesome.

Three commentators offered their opinions regarding the latest Dick Cheney tomfoolery and I couldn’t have put it any better than they did:

Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic:

I don’t know how else to interpret his obviously self-destructive grandstanding this weekend. But think of the long view for a moment. Here is a former vice-president, who enjoyed unprecedented power for eight long, long years. No veep ever wielded power like he did in the long history of American government. In the months after 9/11, he swept all Congressional resistance away, exerted total executive power, wielded a military and paramilitary apparatus far mightier than all its rivals combined and mightier than any power in history, tapped any phone he wanted, claimed the right to torture any suspect he wanted (and followed through with thousands, from Bagram to Abu Ghraib) and was able to print and borrow money with impunity to finance all of it without a worry in the world. But even after all that, he cannot tolerate a few months of someone else, duly elected, having a chance to govern the country with a decent interval of grace.

Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post:

This is the crux of Cheney’s “argument,” and I put the word in quotation marks because it isn’t really a valid argument at all. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration approved programs and methods that previously would have been considered illegal or unacceptable: arbitrary and indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, waterboarding and other abusive interrogation methods, secret CIA prisons, unprecedented electronic surveillance. Since 2001, there have been no new attacks on what the Bush administration creepily called the “homeland.” Therefore, everything that was done in the name of preventing new attacks was justified.

The fallacy lies in the fact that it is impossible for Cheney to prove that anti-terrorism methods within the bounds of U.S. law and tradition would have failed to prevent new attacks. Nor, for that matter, can Cheney demonstrate that torture and other abuses were particularly effective.


Given a choice between a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of state who has given to his nation a lifetime of exemplary public service or an entertainer who brags about how much money he makes from bombast and bluster, Cheney would go with the gasbag. This is advice that’s supposed to help the Republican Party?

Maureen Dowd from The New York Times:

In 2002, when Bush Junior was ramping up to his war against Saddam, Al Gore made a speech trying to slow down that war resolution, pointing out that pivoting from Osama to Saddam for no reason, initiating “pre-emptive” war, and blowing off our allies would undermine the war on terror. Charles Krauthammer called Gore’s speech “a disgrace.” Michael Kelly, his fellow Washington Post columnist, called it “vile” and “contemptible.” Newt Gingrich said that the former vice president asserting that W. was making America less safe was “well outside the mark of an appropriate debate.”


The man who never talked is now the man who won’t shut up. The man who wouldn’t list his office in the federal jobs directory, who had the vice president’s residence blocked on Google Earth, who went to the Supreme Court to keep from revealing which energy executives helped him write the nation’s energy policy, is now endlessly yelping about how President Obama is holding back documents that should be made public.

Cheney, who had five deferments himself to get out of going to Vietnam, would rather follow a blowhard entertainer who has had three divorces and a drug problem (who also avoided Vietnam) than a four-star general who spent his life serving his country.


He has no coherent foreign policy viewpoint. He still doesn’t fathom that his brutish invasion of Iraq unbalanced that part of the world, empowered Iran and was a force multiplier for Muslims who hate America. He left our ports unsecured, our food supply unsafe, the Taliban rising and Osama on the loose. No matter if or when terrorists attack here — and they’re on their own timetable, not a partisan red/blue state timetable — Cheney will be deemed the primary one who made America more vulnerable.

W.’s dark surrogate father is trying to pull the G.O.P. into a black hole of zealotry, just as the sensible brother who lost his future to the scamp brother is trying to get his career back on track.

When Cheney was in the first Bush administration, he was odd man out. Poppy, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell corralled Cheney’s “Genghis Khan” side, as it was known, and his “rough streak.” Cheney didn’t care for Powell even then.

Keep it coming, Dick Cheney; this is gold, I tell ya, GOLD!!

3 Responses to “Dick Cheney: Opinion Compilation”

  1. 1 essenceofamerica
    May 14, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    Are all liberals cowards, or are all cowards liberals?

    Popular has the liberal argument become that insists “harsh” interrogations and other Bush-era intelligence programs and military actions only angered and empowered terrorists and thus made America less safe. Publications – if they can be called that at all anymore – like the treasonous New York Times and Obama-worshipping Washington Post just can’t get enough of Bush-Cheney, even though The One is now playing White House with a clueless Democratic Congress in charge.

    Lest you liberals need reminding – and it seems like you always do – terrorists don’t need a reason to kill. Killing is their reason for being, and they all hate America and Americans. To think they’ll just go away and leave us alone if we simply leave them alone is just plain stupid. It’s like being scared to wage war because someone might die. It’s war. Its purpose is to accomplish a political goal by killing and destroying. But we all know liberals don’t care much for the military – or their country, for that matter, and that includes the New York Times, which takes delight in revealing national secrets.

    Moreover, are you actually naieve enough to believe terrorists wouldn’t “torture” American prisoners? Yeah, all they do is cut off their victims’ heads and throw their ripped-up bodies in filthy streets so Al-Jazeera can broadcast the images on TV. Why don’t you liberals try defending American patriots, for once, and stop advocating the nice treatment of those poor, misunderstood terrorists?

    And Dowd’s Powell-Limbaugh reference bears no relevance. It’s convenient for liberals to side with the U.S. military when it serves their purpose. Otherwise, it gets the David Petraeus treatment. Hypocrites.

    I mistakenly thought the Bush hate would at least subside once the great half-black man assumed his half-historic presidency. But the hate goes on. The liberal lunatics continue to blame a previous administration. Nothing is ever the fault of Democrats. No, no. Congressional hearings on Bush-era policies one day, an act of treason by Obama the next. Hope and change, my ass. The only hope America is going to have is if a real president assumes power in 2013. Don’t even get me started on this change bullshit. What fakery! What lies! What deception!

    VICTOR DAVIS HANSON (NATIONAL REVIEW): For over a year after the murder of 3,000 innocent people in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, shell-shocked Americans were gripped by other horrific images of terrorism across the globe.

    Palestinian suicide bombers blew up Israeli civilians during a renewed intifada. Pakistani terrorists attacked India’s parliament over the disputed Kashmir region. Other terrorists in Pakistan beheaded U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl.

    Islamists killed over 200 at a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia. Chechnyan separatists stormed a Moscow theater and took over 800 hostages; over 100 died before the nightmare was over.

    In the U.S., John Allen Mohammed and his young partner were busy murdering citizens in counties adjoining Washington, D.C. — a city still jittery from anonymous anthrax-laced letters sent in late 2001 to various media organizations and two senators.

    In other words, Americans in 2002 were scared of the spreading worldwide conflagration of radical Islam, and looked to the president to keep them safe. And he did — to bipartisan applause.

    By the end of Nov. 2002, the Bush administration had created the new Department of Homeland Security. We all began removing belts and shoes, as well as surrendering any liquids in our carry-on luggage, at the airport. Air marshals began flying selected routes. The recently passed Patriot Act allowed American anti-terrorism agents to intercept phone calls and e-mails of suspected jihadists.

    At the newly opened Guantánamo Bay Detention Center, jihadists were detained. While specific dates of who was briefed when concerning the waterboarding of certain detainees are now being debated, it seems clear that select members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, became aware of the practice — and that no objections were publicly voiced.

    And former Clinton Justice Department official Eric Holder — now the attorney general — even declared in a 2002 interview that none of the terrorists detained at Guantánamo were protected by the Geneva Convention statutes concerning prisoners of war.

    In October 2002, Congress, with a majority of both Democratic senators and representatives, authorized the removal of Saddam Hussein.

    A number of liberal journalists also endorsed the Iraq War. By November 2002, after almost two years in office, George Bush enjoyed an approval rating of over 60 percent.

    Now, seven years later, we live in a different world. Since then, some unforeseen events have transpired — and other predicted events have not.

    The U.S. has not been attacked again in the manner of 9/11 — although almost all terrorist experts had assured us we would be.

    After a three-week victory in Iraq that removed Saddam Hussein and won the support of nearly 80 percent of the American people, an insurgency grew that would eventually claim over 4,000 American lives. Terrorists almost toppled Iraq’s nascent democracy until Gen. David P. Petraeus’s troop “surge” quelled the violence.

    By then, politics had begun to change. Most who called for invading Iraq long ago abandoned their own zeal and advocacy — and loudly blamed the Bush administration for the violence of the postwar occupation. (Now, they are largely silent about the quiet in Iraq that the Obama administration inherited.)

    Of course, had we suffered another major terrorist attack between 2001–2009, critics would have damned the Bush administration for its perceived laxity as vehemently as they now do in quieter times for its supposed extremism.

    Opportunism, not principles, guides most in Washington. Almost no proponents of the Iraq War withdrew their support right after the successful three-week effort to remove Saddam. Had there been little Iraqi violence during the transition to democracy, former supporters would probably still be vying to take credit for the war’s success.

    Consider also the dexterous Obama administration’s own about-face. It still finds it useful to damn the old Bush government’s embrace of wiretaps, military tribunals, and renditions — even as it dares not drop or completely discount these apparently useful Bush policies, albeit under new names and with new qualifiers.

    What does this political opportunism teach us?

    If we get hit again by a major terrorist attack, you can bet that today’s cooing doves will flip a third time and revert to the screeching hawks of 2002 — and once again scream that their president must do something to keep us safe.


    And I’ve got news for all you liberals: President Bush will always be a bigger and better man than Obama, in every way possible. The previous president was strong, determined, a man of faith, a true patriot who didn’t bow to liberal assholes. What’s Obama? Oh, right: A community organizer who leaned on his half-black heritage and a belief in entitlement to become president. What a freaking joke.

    And everyone who voted for him fell for it. Suckers.

  2. May 26, 2009 at 10:23 am

    good god, so much to respond to, here – but not much time.

    okay, if terrorists are so bad and awful, and i agree they are, then why did the bush administration think we had all the military time, effort, and money in all the world to go after Saddam?? Answer me that, McFly? After 9/11, it was clear that terrorists were emerging from all over the world and the best way to head them off was to capture Osama Bin Laden and other higher ups in Al Qaeda and what did Bush do? He invaded Iraq after trumping up a false story that Saddam was involved with al quaeda.

    You right wingers are always talking about how lefties are such pansies and know nothing about war. That’s fucking ridiculous. We’re for SMART war. Invading Iraq while we’re entering into one of the biggest military campaigns – the war on terrorism – was as stupid as it gets. But, hey, i’m a REPUBLICAN, so as long as we’re off killing people the government tells us are bad, we’re going to give them our support regardless of the quality of decisions they’re making.

    Also, the Iraq War was sold on the cheap – hey, we’ll invade, they’ll greet us as liberators, we’ll put in a democracy and, boom, done. Again, i’m for SMART military strategy. The Bush administration – headed by mean who had never been in combat – were told by many military generals that it would take more soldiers and firepower to secure Iraq. But, nooooooo, they didn’t think they could get the support if they asked for the requisite number of troops. So we went in there without enough military power, without a decently equipped military, saying the war would pay for itself because we’d open their oil reserves and make all that money back. Idiots!

    Furthermore, for the umpteenth time!!! It was not the surge in troop levels that brought down violence in Iraq. It was the Sunni Awakening. What was the Sunni Awakening?? It was the US government and military PAYING OFF Sunni militias. Wads, buckets, backpacks of US cash going into the hands of the militia leaders from the hands of the US military. Violence in Iraq decreased the September before the surge. Yes, the surge helped and it should have happened MUCH sooner. But the Sunni payoff and the increased technological capability of unmanned drones are responsible for the decrease in violence. Violence has surged in Iraq recently. Why? Because the Iraqi government took over relations with the Sunni militias and are not paying them, have killed certain militia leaders recently and aren’t giving them opportunities to participate in government. I blogged about this last year, predicting that violence would increase yet again when the Sunnis weren’t getting American cash anymore.

    Bush, was massive disaster. He was an idiot militarily – and admitted to Bob Woodward that he wasn’t around when a lot of those military decisions were being made. What a fucking douche. Outsourcing a war to your lower level douches.

    I love how the right wing claims to have the monopoly on military knowledge and support. I don’t say I represent the Left, but as a member – I’m far more willing to discuss US military decisions realistically – thus, SMARTLY and not simply follow my government over the cliff because they tell me to.

    And, for the record, I blogged about my intense disagreement with Obama’s FISA support. Secondly, he didn’t do an about-face when it came to military tribunals. It was always understood that some of our War on Terrorism detainees were going to have to be tried in a military court because they committed WAR CRIMES. Therefore, their cases were not suitable for federal court. Hello – get your facts straight. Obama never said he would have all detainees face federal court. You don’t even hear the Left screaming about the military tribunals – they were a given. You only have the RIGHT claiming the left is screaming about military tribunals. nothing of the sort is happening.

    Bush was a true patriot? He led US troops into a war of choice, didn’t equip them properly and then didn’t take care of the wounded when they got home. If that’s your idea of patriotism, you can keep it.

  3. 3 pak handoko di malaysia
    April 17, 2016 at 10:45 am

    Selamat malam para penggemar angka togel 2D 3D 4D 5D Dan 6D lewat internet ini saya pengeng mengucapkan banyak terima kasih kepada KI AGUNG atas bantuannya sama saya dan saya pengen juga menyampaikan sesuatu bagi anda yang sering kalah main togel janganlah Anda Putus Asa…karena Anda sudah menemukan peramal angka yang sangat tepat dan bisa merubah nasib anda menjadi lebih baik dari sebelumnya karena saya sudah membuktikannya kemaring malam waktu pemutaran angka 6D tuk putaran MALAYSIA dan alhamdulillah saya dapat Rp 350 juta dari 4 bandar togel karena KI AGUNG menyuruh saya pasang angka sama 4 bandar dan kemenangan saya ini karena berkat bantuan KI AGUNG dan insya allah beliau akan membantu anda semua dengan Angka Ritual yang mengandung banyak keuntungan dan keberhasilan dan jika anda mau bukti bukan omongan belaka silakan hubungi beliau secepatnya karena kesempatan tidak akan datang kedua kalinya.


    1:Di kejar-kejar tagihan hutang yang tak pernah bisa terlunasih.

    2:Selalu kalah dalam bermain togel sehingga anda bisa-bisa setres mikiring hutang yang semaking menumpuk.

    3:Barang berharga sudah terjual buat judi togel..

    4:Sudah kemana-mana tapi tidak ada menghasilkan solusi yang tepat.

    5:Sudah banyak dukun di tempati minta angka ritualnya,belum dapat juga jalan menyelesaikan masalah.

    6.Mau pulang kampung tapi malu karna tidak ada ongkos pulang.
    7.Dan bagi anda yang memerlukan pesugihan TUYUL anda juga bisa minta sama beliau kalau anda ke pengeng cepat kaya.

    BAGI YANG BERMINAT ANDA BISAH GABUNG DI SINI…!!SUPAYA SEMUA MASALAH ANDA BISA TERSELESAIKAN ATAU Silakan hubungi KI AGUNG di nomor hpnya 0852-1223-1717 .karena angkanya bisa dijamin 100% tembus saya berkata begeni karena saya sudah buktikan sendiri..!!!
    jadi tiba giliran anda untuk membuktikannya,terima kasih…?
    (`’•.¸(` ‘•. ¸*¸. •’´)¸.•’´)
    «´ Thanks AKI `»
    (¸. •’´(¸.•’´ * `’•.¸)`’•.¸ )


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Scarlet Letter of Atheism


Bloggers' Rights at EFF

Blog Stats

  • 97,329 hits
WordPress Political Blogger

Top Clicks

  • None

%d bloggers like this: