Dick Cheney: 'Wrong... wrong,' DNC says

If Cheney feels what he authorized is legal why does he oppose an investigation/trial? An investigation/trial would finalize the discussion of torture. If he is found innocent then he is vindicated. If he is found guilty then he should man up and do the time knowing he saved lives. A real man like Reagan would take the punishment if a crime was committed. Cheaney seems more like his daughter than a real man. Whining on Fox News is beneath a Vice-President.

I seem to recall the Bush/Cheney era a little differently than Darth does.. Cheney thinks it was a sterling success when it came to national security and counter-terrorism. Perhaps there's something to this. After all, except for the catastrophic events of 9/11, and the anthrax attacks against Americans, and terrorist attacks against U.S. allies, and the terrorist attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Bush's inability to capture those responsible for 9/11, and waging an unnecessary war that inspired more terrorists, and the success terrorists had in exploiting Bush's international unpopularity, the Bush/Cheney record on counter-terrorism was awesome.

After the previous administration established a record like that, President Obama didn't ask Cheney for tips? The nerve.

the leader of halliburton kbr - becoming more and more scary every passing day. with each appearance on any channel in any interview, i give thanks to the Higher Power (no, not the retired texas rancher) that the electrified (to say the least) years of nixonian - type paranoia and power obsession are over. thanks to the Higher Power for the passage of time and transfer of office.

the leader of halliburton kbr - becoming more and more scary every passing day. with each appearance on any channel in any interview, i give thanks to the Higher Power (no, not the retired texas rancher) that the electrified (to say the least) years of nixonian - type paranoia and power obsession are over. thanks to the Higher Power for the passage of time and transfer of office.

except for record events of terrorism around the world and the thousands of people who died on 9-11 and the thousands of families who have lost a loved one and the thousands of military persons who have died, lost limbs, or vital functions in the previous administration's war fraud, aside from the documented intelligence printed and placed in folders on their desks, aside from those people's handlng of katrina - "great job, brownie!" ... i'd give them A+ ratings for taking care of the oil companies. the pot bellied oily back slappers and the nation's largest corporations thank them for their unprecedented explosion of profits. i'm happy for the former president's great successes in landing lucrative speaking agreements in front of high school students. i'm sure those events command the big bucks.

Reddog, you need to take some intelligent pills. First of all, Cheney is not the leader of Haliburton/kbr. He hasn't been since 2000, nine years ago.
Second, your prattle in your two posts is just that: mornic prattle.

Pd, an investigation already was done -- in 2004, by career Justice Department lawyers, not political appointees. Your Messiah -- Obimbo -- said there would be no looking back. Apparently he lied, just like he has about no taxes for those making less than $250,000 a year and his health care scam. All this investigation will do is tell CIA operatives not to do anything because someday someone might investigate them. All that will do is put American people at risk. So, when the terrorists do strike us again and thousands are killed again, it will be blood on Obama's and Holder's hands.
One big mistake the Bush administration made was not investigating Holder's involvement in the Clinton pardon scandal. He'd be sleeping behind bars right now if they had investigated this bozo.

John D,
Will these terrorists be Right Wing Terrorists? Teabaggers perhaps?

One big mistake the Bush administration made was not investigating Holder's involvement in the Clinton pardon scandal. He'd be sleeping behind bars right now if they had investigated this bozo.

Posted by: John D | September 2, 2009 3:50 PM
********************************
.

So Shrub Jr should have investigated Holder but Shrub Jr and Darth's war crimes and torture, in violation of American and International law, would amount to "looking back" and should be left alone? Does that mean that I can go out and commit an armed robbery and if no one investigates it, then it becomes ok and should be left alone because we shouldn't be looking back?....Hands down, you, Bruce and Terry are the kings of stupid..

Lil' Johnny Dipstick, the Repugs did investigate the Clinton administration, they spent millions of tax payer dollars investigating a bj, remember?

You're right; listen to all these Republicans! What? These are all Dems? Oops, my bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

Lil' Johnny Dipstick, the Repugs did investigate the Clinton administration, they spent millions of tax payer dollars investigating a bj, remember?

Posted by: janet | September 2, 2009 5:26 PM

Remember? It's been his go-to whaXXing material for more than a decade at this point.

Wait a minute, these warmongers have to be Republicans. Dems? Crap!

I'll keep looking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE&feature=related

John D. Even Gonzales, who headed the Bush Justice Department feels that there should be further investigation into the torture. I bet you would be screaming for his head if Cheney was a Democrat. You might even make up some childish name lake Chebimbo. I take that back, no one of any intelligence would employ grade school name calling.

Janet continues her lusting of John D.

If Holder was for Law and Order, then he wouldn't have dropped the Richardsopn investigation, the Black Panther Voter Intimidation case in Philadelphia, etc...

I guess that old joke applies to you, why doctors spank babies bottoms? Knocks the nuts off the dumb ones.

John D. First of all we have learned how the previous administration handled the justice department. If the investigation wasn't going there way the people in charge got a call. If the investigation still didn't go they're way they were fired. Second there was no investigation of the pardons the president has the power to pardon anyone he wants to. Just ask Scooter libby.

Your Messiah -- Obimbo -- said there would be no looking back. Apparently he lied, just like he has about no taxes for those making less than $250,000 a year and his health care scam.

Posted by: John D | September 2, 2009 3:50 PM

The AG is investingating lof laws were broken by our government. What part of that dont you get?
And could you enlighten me with this tax increase for people making under 250k? I Havent heard about it yet. As for the healthcare 'Scam'. Well, we'll see about that now wont we.
And when you get old John D (Deaf, Dumb and Dumber) I'm sure you'll be signing over your SS checks and Medicare to the underprivaledged and poor children of America right? Ya, didn think so.

Scot, I will not be handing over Medicare and Social Security over to others. You see, the government has been taking money out of my paycheck for more about three decades now. So, you see, I would like to get back what I've put into it.

Dumb Dumb Janet, infested with the little ocean creatures, actually money was spent on something other than a BJ. You see Slick Willy perjured himself and obstructed justice. Now, I would have liked for Commando Janet Reno to have allowed investigations into much bigger Clinton scandals such as illegal FBI files, broken campaign finance laws, Chinese campaign donations for U.S. secrets, that kind of thing.

Scot S. Blakeley: What checks?

You think Social Insecurity will still be cutting checks when John D gets old?

You are funny, Scot S. Blakeley.

i guess that old joke applies to you, why doctors spank babies bottoms? Knocks the nuts off the dumb ones.

Posted by: Terry | September 2, 2009 7:55 PM
*******************************************
.

Way to go TrickleDown Boy,
Way to uphold the Repug tradition of pretending that the opinions of women, minorities and gay people mean less than the opinions of doughy pinch faced white guys like yourself.

It's no wonder your team can't win elections anymore.

And quit posting these pictures of yourself on Craigslist, Terri. You're making us sick.
http://morbidtourist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/fat-guy-with-hamster.png

OK. I think I've got it now... Dems AGAINST the Iraq War,...er, wait a minute...FOR the Iraq War...oh I give up. Just bring the Dems home, alive, NOW!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yd2pql5heg&feature=related

Terry, If a Black man having a night stick is a federal crime, I assume that you want the white guys who showed up at the town hall meetings with AR-15's locked up too, right? Are black guys with night sticks more intimidating than white guys with assault riifles Terry?

I guess that old joke applies to you, why doctors spank babies bottoms? Knocks the nuts off the dumb ones.

Posted by: Terry | September 2, 2009 7:55 PM

Is this guy for real? What a sexist idiot. His mother must be ashamed.

OK, I am perfectly willing to play by any rules the other side agrees to. That is why we have the Geneva Convention.

However, if the other side thinks it is permissible to cut of heads on camera, that gives me a whole lot of latitude and lifts any restrictions imposed by the Geneva convention. Al Quada is allowed to set the rules of the game, but those rules apply to both of us.

I expect this POV will be controversial, but ask yourself this. If someone attacks your child, how far are you willing to go to save your child. For most of us, there is no limit and that is how it should be.

SPIKE/TV had an interesting show in last night. It was how to survive an airline hijacking. I assure you, no thought was given to being nice and fair to the hijackers. Back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, Russian diplomats were much safer than US diplomats. That is because it was well know the Russians believed in severe retaliation.

Rick

Rick that bis not how the Geneva Convention works. Violations by others do not relieve a country of their need to follow the Convention.

Would your "an eye for an eys" theory apply to domestic law enforcement as well? If I think someone might be planning to hurt my kid, should I be allowed to walk up to them and blow their brains out without fear of prosecution? Is that really the way you think it should be? Vigilante justice? If I think you are a danger to me or my family should I be legally allowed to torture and then kill you Rick? Is that what you consider to be justice? That's barbarism, not civilisation. Not surpising considering that you uuse SPIKE TV as your moral and ethical guide.

John D said -- You see Slick Willy perjured himself and obstructed justice.

yeah -- he lied about having an affair. So if all is fair in love & war, then Shrub NEEDS to be investigated for lying about WMD and the need to dump our search for bin Laden (the real 9/11 culprit) to go after Saddam to finish what daddy couldn't. But you'd never call for an investigation into that, right? Because that was for the good of the country. And we all know that Bill Clinton's affair did the true damage to the country.

"janet ": No, again. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. There was nothing impeachable about a BJ. Oh, there would have been much political moralizing, but exactly zero impeachment activity if he had not lied in the Paula Jones deposition.

Rick

"Lou": I said it would be controversial, but I stand by it. I believe the Supreme Court erred in applying the Geneva Convention to Al Quada. But, the second part is there needs to be some retribution for violations of the Geneva convention. It is, in my opinion, immoral to allow one side to violate those conventions with impunity.

I don't need to extend that to domestic law. We have a domestic police force and a justice system. If I kill somene, it is likely I will be killed (at least in Texas). That is sorely lacking in international affairs. So, the analogy is not comparable. Your second analogy is also not comparable. I am advocating like for like and not action for thought. It is not permissible to shoot you if I think you might attack my kid, but is clearly permissible to shoot you if you start the attack. That may seem barbaric to you, but not to me. In fact, there is no ethical consideration here at all.

I was referencing a specific situation: a hijacking. The fact it was on Spike is ommaterial. In fact, I had to look up the channel number for Spike. I have argued in the past that there will be no more hijackings because the passengers will not allow it. But, my question to you, which you have managed to avoid, is what length would you go to in order to protect yourself and your family. Are you suggesting you would apply the Geneva convention, or its equivalent, even if it did not prevent or neutralize the attack? I really don't think so. Or, you are entirely too squishy.

I also said nothing about vigilantism. This, Lou, is war. It is killed or be killed. Think back. What do you think the people on the four hijacked planes or in the twin towers have thought if you decided not to be "too tough" on the hijackers and hence didn't stop it? Do you think they would hold you in high regard as a "nice guy"?

I referenced the Russians. Do you think their retaliation was wrong or do you think it is better to lose diplomats?

Now that I think about it, there have been no video tapped beheadings in a while. I wonder why that is. Maybe Al Quada suddenly decided to follow the US Supreme Court and follow the Geneva Conventions. Yeah, that the ticket.

Rick

Rick is right, in war anything is appropriate to protect your civilians. That's why the North Vietnamese were absolutely right to torture me at length to find out what I kew about future bombing raids on their civilian areas. Wouldn't you torture a flyer from another country if you thought they were going to bomb your kids:? Of course you would! Rick would have been the fiorst one to beat the crap out of me in the name of protecting the children. The Geneva Convention was a giant mistake. Torturing prisoners is the way to go. Believe me I know. Rick is of course right to greatly admire the brutality of the Soviet Union, and the KGB. That is the model every patriotic american like Rick should always reference on issues of morality and ethics. We need to adopt their methods, and we need to be just as brutal, and jusrt as contemptous of international law as they were. Rick's no squishy girly man, no he's a real torturer at heart, just like the guys who tortured me, his role models and heros.

Posted by: Rick Caird | September 3, 2009 5:52 PM

So if no countries follow the Geneva Convention then what????

The Geneva Convention was put in place by moral and responsible people. Al Queda hardly fits that catagory. Neither did the Bush administration.
For Dick to suggest his policies protected US soil from further attacks is rediculous. Never before 911 or after were we attacked on US soil. Had the Bush administration listened to all the intel it was given most likely 911would never have happened.
The Bush administration had no regard for international law just as the enemy has. We are supposed to be better than that!
I'm sure you and all your wingnut teabaggers are just dying for another 911 just to prove your points! Thats what sickens me the most about you people!
Now go torture a frog and pretend its Osama Bin Laden!! WHom by the way was never caught even though promised by Bush.

Posted by: Lt. Cmdr. John S. McCain | September 3, 2009 6:16 PM

I' m not sure if you're being serious or not. John McCain was tortured and he is 100% against what DIck and Bush allowed. He is also against further investigation. But he vehemently disagrees with the US sponsoring torture. I'm guessing you're really more mad at your government for putting you in harms way then the enemy for torturing you. Am I right?

Scott -- the post you reference from "John McCain" was meant to be the ultimate in sarcasm. Did you really not get that?

" Lt. Cmdr. John S. McCain". Do you normally have these reading comprehension problems? If you go back and read my post, I clearly stated that I would play be any rules the other side agreed to play by. So, I reserve the right to take any action equivalent to their actions. In your dumb little example, you are claiming the US tortured NV prisoners first. Hardly.

Rick

"Scot S. Blakeley": You misunderstood too. I never advocated not playing by the Geneva convention as long as the other side adheres to it also. I started off the whole thing by saying I am willing to play by any rules the other side wants to use. But, whatever rules they choose, applies to both sides. Would you want to play basketball if the other side could tackle, but you couldn't?

I will also add that terrorists are trying to sow fear. Most of them are not as brave as they appear to be. There are video's of Hamas fighters grabbing up children to use as shields. The older guys never perpetrate suicide bombings. They get others to do that.These guys rely on us to play by different rules than they do. But, they respect strength and they have as much fear, and maybe more, as the next guy.

Rick

Rick

Posted by: Rick Caird | September 4, 2009 9:01 AM

Rick, it appears that the terrorisst have been successful in sowing fear in you. You are so completely terrified that you want torture to be used to protect you. You are so filled with blind unreasoning fear, that you demand that crimes against humanity be committed in the hope that you will be safer somehow. Is there any limit to what you will support because of your abject cowardiuce Rick? Should be targeted civilians to protect you? Should we use children as human shields to save your life?

Truly, you have no room to criticize the terrorists. You are as cowardly as they are, and you recognize no more morality than they do. You would do all the same actions as they would, because you too are a scared, pathetic little man who cares about nothing more that holding on to your empty morally bankrupt life.

Posted by: Lou | September 4, 2009 11:43 AM

Thanks Lou I couldnt have said it any better! Unfortunately you cant teach an old dog new tricks.

Not sexist, just saying that Janet's lack of intellgence backs up that old joke.

Vic,

There is a difference between conduct at a voting booth and a town hall meeting. There are laws specifically written to protect voters from voting w/o feeling intimidated. Also, the man with the gun at the town hall had every right to carry that gun and the poster he was carrying just as much as any loon on the left would.

Unbelievable,

If President Bush needs to be investifating for lying over WMDs, then so does President Clinton.

" Lou": It is not fear at all. It is fairness.

Once I get by all your name calling, I find little that you say. It seems as if your claim is that my morality should not be based on someone else's morality. Really? Where did your morality come from? Did you think it up all by yourself or are you merely conforming to what you were taught? I suspect the later. I suspect you have no personal basis for your definition of morality.

Earlier, I claimed that if my family or my children were in imminent danger, I would have a different level of morality than I would have walking around the neighborhood. Do you disagree with that? Have you even thought about that?

I claim that my morality should fit the situation. In this case, I allow the other side to define the rules and I will play by those rules. That seems fair to me. Does it not seem fair to you?

So, would it be possible for you to eliminate the useless name calling and actually address my claim?

Rick

Rick, Well, if you choose to follow the morality of Hamas and Osama Bin Ladin, that's your business. However, I choose to have higher morals than that, no matter what they do, or what their spirtual followers like you do. I would never use a child as a human shield, no matter who else does. Clearly you would happily sacrifce an innocent childs life to save your own, because you let Hamas determine your morality, or more properly, your complete lack of morality. I have no doubt that you, like your moral guide Bin Ladin, would have no problem slaughtering innocent civilians without a moral qualm. I wouldn't ever do that. I have actual morals, something you seem to have let your fear take from you. Of course that means you have no reason to actually criticize the terrorists, since you see no problem with their actions. You and they share the exact same level of moral and ethical bankruptcy. You think the answer to terrorism is to become a terrorist. I think that is dangerous nonsense unbefitting a civilised human being.

"Lou": You keep jumping to conclusions and claiming I said something I did not say. I only said that Hamas grabbing children and using them as shields set a very low bar for the level of morality at which they chose to fight. That leaves me lots of room. I never advocated using children as shields and if you go back and look, you can confirm that. What I do object to is Hamas, and their like, fighting from amidst civilians, attacking from Mosques, and firing rockets from schools. My point is that if any civilians do get killed or injured the onus is on Hamas for putting the civilians at risk. Are you arguing they get a free pass and should be allowed to do what they are doing?

I am glad you have such high morals. You seem to deny my claim that morals, like ethics, are situational. Actually, you don't deny it, you simply have never considered the question. I claim your "morals" will be different depending on the situation as you see it. I can imagine all kinds of situations where my actions would be different that other situations. For example, I am quite certain if your children were threatened by a bomb in their school, you would go to much greater lengths to find and disarm that bomb than you would be reading about such a situation in the comfort of your living room.


I would like to see you address that, but you won't. You would much rather hold yourself as some 'morally better than you" type and hurl ad hominems without actually looking inside yourself.

Rick

Yes I do reject your situational morals (or as you right wingers call it when attacking liberals "Moral relativism"). I believe that there are things that are morally unacceptable at ALL times. I don't believe that evil acts justify evil acts in return. I have no doubts that your morals are "situational", essentially meaning that you really have no morals at all. Anything is acceptable to you under the "right" circumstances. Two wrongs do make a right in your view.

Let's take your "bomb in the school" "the morality of 24/ Spike TV" fantasy nonsense. Placing a bomb in the school is immoral. If I torture somone as a result of that other immoral act, understandable or not, that act of torture would be an immoral act on my part. The immorality of the bomber, does not excuse my immorality, it may explain it, but it does not excuse it. What if the alledged bomber was a 13 year old boy who goes to your kids school? Are you going to torture him with a clean heart Rick? Or does your relative moralism only allow torture for Muslim terrorists? Certainly your example could have been used by the North Vietnamese to "justify" the torture they inflicted on our capture pilots like John McCain. I am willing to categorically deny the morality of that torture, are you?

Like many you conncaoct elaborate fantasy scenarios to justify torture that do not reflect the reality of our government's use of it. There was no ticking bomb in a school. The torture occurred weeks and months after the capture of the detainees. How does that fit in your situational amorality Rick?