Cheney continues...

1. 60

   egivposted 14 years ago

   Is he really still trying to justify waterboarding? He is just making a fool of himself, the republican party, and America...

   replyreport
   1. 60

      awsydneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      He already looks quite foolish! Congrats on your hubs.

      replyreport
2. 61

   tksenseiposted 14 years ago

   He's right is what he is.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That isn't a sentence Tens. But he is a traitor to the US and a false flag perpetrator. And he is a mean SOB.
      
      

      replyreport
3. 62

   Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago

   Here we go.............

   replyreport
4. 61

   tksenseiposted 14 years ago

   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08 … rogations/

   replyreport
5. 60

   readytoescapeposted 14 years ago

   I won’t condemn or condone the actions taken during interrogations. The biggest point here is changing the rules after the game has been played. Cheney is correct, its damaging to our national security abilities and regard held by those sworn to destroy us.
   
   The Administration is using this as a tactic of mass distraction to direct coverage and attention away from falling poll numbers and the Healthcare debacle.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Very well put.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      egivposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I disagree. The presidency is not a free vacation to do whatever you like. If you break the law, you should be punished, president, vice president, or janitor. Are you trying to tell me that if Obama starts making secret under-the-table deals, you aren't going to want to know exactly what he did after he is done?
      
      It's not the Administration using Cheney either, it's Cheney himself who won't shut up.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Really?  So why is Obama shredding what is left of the Constitution in his bid to do what he considers the Right Thing to Do?  Isn't that the same thing you castigate Cheney for?  What makes it right in Obama's case?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            egivposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I never mentioned Obama. If Obama breaks the law, he should be punished, even though I don't believe that he is.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Yeah, appointing czars that only report to him with no accountability to the other two branches of government is in the Constitution . . . oh wait, I meant the Manifesto . . .

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Yeah, just like those signing statements, wait..........that was the other guy.

                  replyreport
            2. 68

               ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               No but you stated that the President is bound by the law.  Which I agree with, by the way.  Yet here is another sitting President who refuses to be bound by the supposedly highest law in the land.  If we held our leaders accountable to that law, you'd have no complaints to voice against any of our politicians.  If you accept breaking the rules one way, you mist at the very least give your tacit approval when the rules are broken in other ways.

               replyreport
         2. 62

            nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Very good point. Directly interfering with bankruptcy court proceedings, neglecting to revoke telco immunity protection (as he promised to do in his campaign), disrupting the free market with Cash for Clunkers... what else will BHO have to do before the libs realize he's trampling on the constitution?

            replyreport
   3. 68

      bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry, there were rules. The lawyers for Bush the murderer changed them. There already were international rules, endorsed by the US in place until Bush the Hun decided to bring back barbarism.
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 68

         ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Some of us would argue that government is the ultimate form of barbarism, but I'm pretty sure that belief is in the minority.  It's kind of like fire, a useful servant and a fearful master.  I don't think our current government, whatever party is in power, is a servant of any kind.

         replyreport
6. 60

   readytoescapeposted 14 years ago

   Thank you

   replyreport
7. 62

   nicompposted 14 years ago

   Cheaney rocks. He has the defense of the United States as his top priority. He understands the threat posed by people who are willing to fly commercial aircraft into civilian targets. He hasn't forgotten.
   
   We need more leaders like him.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I dislike Cheney almost as much as I do BHO, although for different reasons.  He was the guy who pushed for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and then benefited his corporate buddies.  He epitomizes the warfare part of the welfare-warfare state.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      blue dogposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      don't forget the plastic box cutters, or the controlled demolition of building 7. 
      
      or the plastic sheeting and duct tape.
      
      or the yellow ribbons.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Put your tin foil hat back on. There's a black helicopter hovering outside.

         replyreport
         1. 68

            bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry buddy, but until you can explain why Willie Brown was warned not to fly commercially 24 hours before 9/11 you are wearing the tin foil.
            
            And if you can't explain why popular mechanics(the conspiracy "debunker") was owned by the same guy (Rupert Murdoch) who employed Bill Kristol of Fox News, who called for a "new Pearl Harbor" on his PNAC website in 2000, it is you again who is wearing the tin foil.
            
            

            replyreport
            1. 62

               nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I'll try, but I have little hope of reaching you...
               
               Willie Brown himself said he got low-key warnings routinely. No one corroborated the warning. There is no record of the warning besides Brown himself. And I think it was 8 hours before, not 24.
               
               Popular Mechanics isn't the only publication that debunked your controlled demolition bunk. You conveniently ignore the others, yes? It's an ad-hominem attack anyway. Science is science, regardless of who holds the purse strings.
               
               So, Bill Kristol was directed by Overlord Murdoch to call for a New Pearl Harbor; they all assumed that no one would make that connection, right? Or... did Murdoch write the column ... and... put Bill Kristol's name on it? ....
               
               Good luck with the Big Foot thing.

               replyreport
               1. 68

                  bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Are you calling Willie Brown a liar? Bill Kristol was a founding member of PNAC. It would be likely that Murdoch shared his goals. That is why he cooked up a debunking that a mere look at Las Vegas demolitions would render useless. Your buddy Cheney is a murderer. He worked it just like Operation Northwoods which has been declassified. That was to be a false flag operation against the US. It was to use remote controlled aircraft. Daddy Bush was in the CIA when this scheme was hatched against Cuba and Kennedy refused it. Just remember, the US military was going to hit US cities. Great folks weren't they? I transfer the hat to you.   
                  
                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Are you calling Willie Brown a canary in a coal mine? Seriously, you don't address my response, you just throw dust in the air. You have no debating skillz.
                     
                     Calling for a new Pearl Harbor is not a 'goal' of any kind.
                     
                     Some mere common sense would tell you a fully-loaded jet hit the building and it collapsed. To subscribe to a controlled demolition myth is to ignore how a building in Las Vegas is brought down. It's kind of a noisy and labor-intensive process. Lots of drilling and such. Stripping drywall, etc.
                     
                     oohhh, libel. Good luck with that. Keep Obama on speed dial so you can phone him up the next time we are attacked.
                     
                     Remote control aircraft rock. Fewer military casualties, more good military intelligence.
                     
                     
                     Thanks for the hat. You obviously need it more than I, but I'm sure you have spares in your Safe Room. Keep the faith, brother! Don't run your microwave oven in the day time!

                     replyreport
                     1. 68

                        bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Nicomp, that was weak. With regard to the planes, no one doubts that they hit two of three towers, but all three imploded. And Fema said the jet fuel was burned up in the matter of minutes.
                        
                        Calling for a new Pearl Harbor was not a goal, but was a means to an end. The paper went on to say that it would be many years before we would be involved in the Middle East without a Pearl Harbor type event. Now one could say an attack, but most believe that Pearl Harbor was preventable and that FDR allowed it. Whether he did or didn't, it was the full meaning of the statement. Don't you see? And they write it and it happened and that is undisputable fact. You don't see anything fishy there knowing that George Bush's brother was head of security and his contract ended with the WTC on 9/11. And his successor died the first day on the job? Not fishy to you?
                        
                        Your Northwoods argument was not really a debate, just an acknowledgement that the government was capable of dreaming up a false flag operation. To not believe the conspiracy is tin foil all the way, Nicomp.   
                        
                        
                        

                        replyreport
   3. 60

      egivposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The reason you think that the United States is in constant danger is because HIS ADMINISTRATION scared you shitless. Remember the DAILY terror alerts? How many of them were true? 9/11 was a tragedy, but he used it to scare people into letting the administration do whatever they wanted. Figure 1: Iraq.
      
      Fear is a powerful tool.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Give me a break. You have some inside knowledge about the alert level?
         
         Honestly, what will it take for you to believe there are people who want to kill us? When BHO raises the threat level, will you pooh pooh that? It wouldn't be a partisan issue, would it?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            egivposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Insider knowledge? They turned out all FALSE. And while you were stocking up on duct tape and canned beans, Bush and Cheney were passing laws that impeded on our civil rights. They invaded a country for reasons that have been PROVEN FALSE. They interrogated people in Guantanamo using tactics that were not just immoral, but against the GENEVA CONVENTION. Read a book once in a while. I don't doubt that there are people that want to attack America, but you can't take advantage of that to distract the population.
            
            I am not touching the conspiracy theory argument.

            replyreport
            1. 62

               nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Nope. The Geneva Convention did not apply. Sorry!

               replyreport
8. 79

   Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago

   I guess you wouldn't have like to hear what John McCain said about torture on Sunday?

   replyreport
9. 0

   annvansposted 14 years ago

   I don't know what is going on with Cheney, all I wonder is how he don't have any wrinkles.

   replyreport
10. 68

    bgamallposted 14 years ago

    How many of you didn't know that we invited the Taliban to the US in 1997 and they were guests of Unocal? How many of you know that they refused to build the pipeline to Daddy Bush and Haliburton investements in the Caspian?
    
    How many of you know that this was the real reason we went into Afghanistan?
    
    Remember when Bush said he could care less about Bin Laden? His mission to secure his daddy's immoral pipeline had been begun, and is now being carried out by Obama. Probably is why the neocons haven't tried to kill him. Not that it makes it right.

    replyreport
    1. 62

       nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I think Dad's a little old to be workin' on a pipeline.
       
       Wasn't the pipeline supposed to run to Area 51 so the Republicans could shuttle back and forth from Washington without risking detection by the 42nd degree Masons?
       
       Gotta go, there's a van outside trying to count my money.

       replyreport
       1. 68

          bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Nicomp that is not an answer. Go count your money and then think about a real answer.
          
          

          replyreport
       2. 68

          bgamallposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Nicomp that is not an answer. Go count your money and then think about a real answer.
          
          

          replyreport
       3. 60

          blue dogposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          before you come back, try reading crossing the rubicon.  hopefully within those 600 pages you will be able to glean a fraction of information that will then allow you to bring some knowledge to any intelligent discussion about dick cheney.

          replyreport
11. 61

    tksenseiposted 14 years ago

    Oh brother...
    
    The conspiracy nuts never miss a chance to share their exciting, shocking and dramatic 'truth.'
    
    And they never get tired of repeating it.

    replyreport