• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Chatty Cheney

kolanuraven

Well-known member
He's another one that should SHUT UP!!


He hardly made a peep for 8 years...and now he can't shut up???????



He's one of those guys when he hits retirement....he doesn't know what to do with himself.....
 

Mike

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
He's another one that should SHUT UP!!


He hardly made a peep for 8 years...and now he can't shut up???????



He's one of those guys when he hits retirement....he doesn't know what to do with himself.....

I wish he would have a news conference each and every day for the next ten years and slam the Democrats who excoriated him and Bush.

Bring it on Dick!!!!!!!!!! :lol: If it gets on a Liberals nerve, I love it!!!!! :lol:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Mike said:
kolanuraven said:
He's another one that should SHUT UP!!


He hardly made a peep for 8 years...and now he can't shut up???????



He's one of those guys when he hits retirement....he doesn't know what to do with himself.....

I wish he would have a news conference each and every day for the next ten years and slam the Democrats who excoriated him and Bush.

Bring it on Dick!!!!!!!!!! :lol: If it gets on a Liberals nerve, I love it!!!!! :lol:


He's like you....really kinda pitiful!
 

Mike

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Mike said:
kolanuraven said:
He's another one that should SHUT UP!!


He hardly made a peep for 8 years...and now he can't shut up???????



He's one of those guys when he hits retirement....he doesn't know what to do with himself.....

I wish he would have a news conference each and every day for the next ten years and slam the Democrats who excoriated him and Bush.

Bring it on Dick!!!!!!!!!! :lol: If it gets on a Liberals nerve, I love it!!!!! :lol:


He's like you....really kinda pitiful!


I see it worked................ :lol:
 

TSR

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Dick Cheney: Why So Chatty All of a Sudden?
By MICHAEL DUFFY / WASHINGTON Michael Duffy
TIME magazine

In the last few days, former Vice President Dick Cheney has appeared on CBS' Face the Nation and Fox News to defend the Bush team's harsh interrogation practices. His daughter Liz has done a turn on MSNBC to echo her father. Next week, Cheney is scheduled to give a speech called "Keeping America Safe" at the American Enterprise Institute.

For a man whose public profile was almost non-existent while he was a public servant, it's clear from his schedule alone that private citizen Cheney hasn't merely resurfaced - he's gone on the offensive. The question is why?

Parsing Cheney - codenamed Angler by the Secret Service - is a lot like fishing in dark water; there's a lot going on underneath, but you'd never know it from staring at the surface. So let's take Cheney's own stated explanation first. The former Veep says he's worried that by dismantling a controversial Bush-era terrorist surveillance program and stepping back from harsh interrogation policies, the Obama administration is putting the nation at risk. "I think it's fair to argue," said Cheney, "that we're not going to have the same safeguards we've had for the last eight years."

Cheney is clearly troubled both by Obama's rollback of the policies he championed - and the buzz on the left that a sitting president might prosecute a predecessor who took those policies too far. Cheney has repeatedly charged the White House with proceeding with prosecutions against Justice Department lawyers who found the legal basis for the policies and CIA officers who executed them. But Cheney is reaching: Obama has stopped short of calling for anything more than a probe into the genesis of the Bush era tactics; true, that probe might well lead to more questions about Cheney's conduct, but Obama has specifically ruled out legal action against the CIA officers.

A more likely explanation is that Cheney, who championed the idea of pre-emptive attack doctrine as vice president, knows that in politics as well the best defense is often a good offense. With the White House decision to release various Bush-era memos on interrogation, and the coming disclosure of thousands more photographs from Abu Ghraib later this month, "He's trying to rewrite history," says a Republican consultant who has experience in intelligence matters. "He knows that as time goes by, he will look worse. And so he's trying to put his stroke on it."

Cheney obliquely conceded as much on Sunday when he told CBS' Bob Scheiffer, "I think its very, very important that we have a clear understanding that what happened here was an honorable approach to defending the nation, that there was nothing devious or deceitful or dishonest or illegal about what was done." That sounds like: Ok, we got a little out of hand. But we meant well. So how 'bout we just let it go, ok?

What's quite clear about Cheney's sudden chatty spree is that Cheney wants to refocus the question about waterboarding and other interrogation techniques from whether they were legal to whether they worked. After eight years on the front lines of the war on terror, perhaps that is all a man can see. It certainly might explain why Cheney's making such a fuss about asking Obama to release a pair of after-action memos - memos he says offer proof that the controversial methods produced evidence that, as Cheney claimed on Sunday, "saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives."

A far darker explanation for the spring offensive isn't about the past but the future. Obama officials spied something like a set up in Cheney's latest gambit. One of the Bush' teams biggest talking points in its final days in office was an insistence that its greatest accomplishment was preventing a second attack in the years after Sept. 11. By laying down the charge now that Obama has made the country less safe, the Bush team may be able to point fingers of blame if a second attack ever comes.

Cheney has never had great political instincts, but it's also possible that with the Republican party scattered and adrift, he sees little to lose and perhaps something to gain from stating his case now. Cheney briefly ran for president in 1996, and though he is unlikely to make that mistake again, he may see a chance to boost his dismal approval ratings at least within the battered ranks of the GOP. The argument against this is that it is difficult to believe even the former vice president thinks a personal campaign for waterboarding is a good political move.

In any case, Cheney's reappearance delights Democrats - "Bring it on!" quipped a White House official Tuesday afternoon when asked about Cheney's re-emergence - and dismayed Republicans. Said one: "We're trying to turn the page and he's climbing out of the grave to haunt us."


It was interesting watching former gov. Jesse Ventura the other night on Larry King. As a former Navy Seal he said he was waterboarded as part of his training, adding that waterboarding is definitely torture. He didn't have many kind words for Cheney btw.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
c_05132009_520.gif



A British view of it:
Looked at from a distance, the Bush administration wanted to do two things at once: to declare to the world that freedom is on the march, and human rights are coming to the world with American help, while simultaneously declaring to captives that the US has no interest in the law, human rights, accountability, transparency or humanity. They wanted to give hope to all the oppressed of the planet, while surgically banishing all hope from the prisoners they captured and tortured. And the only way they could pull this off is by the total secrecy they constructed and defended. So we had a public government respectful of the rule of law, and a secret government whose main goal was persuading terror suspects that there was no rule of law at all. It is hard to convey just how dangerous this was and is.
 

Jessntx

Active member
The only problem I find with what Cheney is saying is that he's right!!

I just wish that more people would listen to what he's saying, instead of writing him off because of their intense hatred of anyone conservative,,,

Where's your common sense??

:???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Former FBI agent calls waterboarding counterproductive
Posted: 12:35 PM ET
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The contentious debate over so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" took center stage on Capitol Hill Wednesday as a former FBI agent involved in the questioning of terror suspects testified that such techniques — including waterboarding — are ineffective.

Ali Soufan, an FBI special agent from 1997 to 2005, told members of a key Senate Judiciary subcommittee that such "techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda."

His remarks followed heated exchanges between committee members with sharply differing views on both the value of the techniques and the purpose of the hearing itself.

Soufan, who was involved in the interrogation of CIA detainee Abu Zubaydah, took issue with former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has argued that enhanced interrogation techniques helped the government acquire intelligence necessary to prevent further attacks after September 11, 2001.

The techniques, which were approved by the Bush administration, are considered torture by many critics.

"From my experience — and I speak as someone who has personally interrogated many terrorists and elicited important actionable intelligence — I strongly believe that it is a mistake to use what has become known as the 'enhanced interrogation techniques,'" Soufan noted in his written statement.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
With the administration and liberals talking every other day about the Bush administration and how they caused all this and how they should be tried as war criminals etc.........Seems only fitting that someone would be designated to defend themselves.

Why is it that you liberals think he should shut up and have to stand back and watch himself along with Bush be blamed and persecution.

Do you not believe in defending yourself and the freedom of speech to do so? :? :roll:

I have a strong feeling if the Obama administration would shut up and start handling the problem and leave the past administration alone they would leave him alone!
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Cheney obliquely conceded as much on Sunday when he told CBS' Bob Scheiffer, "I think its very, very important that we have a clear understanding that what happened here was an honorable approach to defending the nation, that there was nothing devious or deceitful or dishonest or illegal about what was done." That sounds like: Ok, we got a little out of hand. But we meant well. So how 'bout we just let it go, ok?

How in the world do you read into that "ok we got a little out of hand"??

Cheney has only one concern and that is the future of the USA. He has no political ambitions and has said as much.
 

TSR

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Cheney obliquely conceded as much on Sunday when he told CBS' Bob Scheiffer, "I think its very, very important that we have a clear understanding that what happened here was an honorable approach to defending the nation, that there was nothing devious or deceitful or dishonest or illegal about what was done." That sounds like: Ok, we got a little out of hand. But we meant well. So how 'bout we just let it go, ok?

How in the world do you read into that "ok we got a little out of hand"??

Cheney has only one concern and that is the future of the USA. He has no political ambitions and has said as much.

Cheney may not have any political ambitions for himself but its ludicrous to think he doesn't have "political friends" that he would help, not to mention the GOP where who knows if he is an asset or a liability at this time.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Cheney Agonistes [Victor Davis Hanson]

What is strange about the furor over the Cheney interviews is that so many of the arguments against them simply have no precedent or logic.

1. If one were to say the vice president emeritus, as a matter of understood decorum, should refrain from criticism of the subsequent administration, then why did former vice president Al Gore — to the delight of much of the media — go on a virtual barnstorming crusade against the Bush administration in language far more partisan and hysterical (e.g., "He [Bush] lied to us! He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!")?

2. If one were to say that the vice president was representing some fringe position on the status of detainees at Guantánamo, then one need only review the transcript of Attorney General Eric Holder’s 2002 CNN interview when Holder explicitly said those at Guantánamo could be held indefinitely for the duration of the war and were without the benefit of the protections offered by the Geneva Convention Accords.

3. If one were to argue Cheney is simply covering his tracks on the subject of waterboarding, then one need only be reminded that Cheney admits he was briefed and approved the techniques and now candidly tells us why he did so — while the Speaker of the House was likewise briefed, and by her silence as a congressional overseer approved de facto the techniques, but now quite disingenuously denied such complicity at the very time she seeks to ruin the careers of lawyers who merely offered opinions rather than set or oversaw policy.

4. If one were to believe that Cheney was selectively trying to refashion the past, then consider that (a) his points are clearly in reply to the Obama’s administration’s own prior selective release of Bush-administration legal counsel briefs, done for partisan political purposes and over the objections of career CIA officers, and (b) Cheney is asking for full, let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may disclosure in his requests to make the entire record public of both the interrogations and their relevance to preventing further attacks.

In short, while pundits still believe Cheney is a marginalized figure and an easy target of scorn, in fact, his methodical defense of the past is both logical and principled, and is beginning to illustrate, in quite painful fashion, the utter hypocrisy of the entire Democratic position on enhanced interrogations techniques and Guantánamo Bay. The American people more likely agree with Cheney than not; and even if they did not, they still prefer a candid and honest opponent to a disingenuous and self-serving ally.

As a footnote: In these Machiavellian times, it almost seems that the White House and some in the Democratic Congress who are still calling for hearings are at ease embarrassing Nancy Pelosi, whose prior value to the party as anti-Bush bomb thrower has now been eclipsed, since she appears as a looney, undisciplined partisan that can do far more damage to the cause than she ever did to Bush.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTgwZmQ0MDZmNmU3MDNmM2M5NTI5ZTAwYzg1M2E3NzQ=
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Bottom line....Cheney is washed up and over. He can't stand it that he's not ' in the circle' and having everyone listen to him, either cause of fear or blind loyalty.

He's like the kid in the grocery store, he's hoping a fit will get someone's attention.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Cheney was very well thought of before, during, and after Desert Storm.

Nothing changed except the media took a hard left turn and managed to dupe some Liberals into thinking he's an ogre.

It's amazing what stupid people can perpetuate................ :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Bottom line....Cheney is washed up and over. He can't stand it that he's not ' in the circle' and having everyone listen to him, either cause of fear or blind loyalty.

He's like the kid in the grocery store, he's hoping a fit will get someone's attention.

He can't stand it that we've got a narcissist in the white house that is willing to throw the entire country under the bus to get an ego fix.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Cheney's words are not falling on deaf ears............

George Stephanopoulos has acknowledged that Dick Cheney’s national security arguments “have started to get some traction” with the Obama administration.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Bottom line....Cheney is washed up and over. He can't stand it that he's not ' in the circle' and having everyone listen to him, either cause of fear or blind loyalty.

He's like the kid in the grocery store, he's hoping a fit will get someone's attention.

And how long has Clinton been out of office, and how many times has he defended what he thought was right?

Cheney and Bush are being attacked on a daily basis, even threatening to try them as war criminals. He has every right to defend what he and Bush did. It makes logical sense that he would defend the stand they took.

You liberals crack me up with your hypocrisy, if Bill does not go away that is ok, if Gays or whomever want free speech that is ok but let a VP that is being crucified in the media speak out to defend himself and that is bad!

I often wonder if you guys know you are hypocrites or are you like the fat chick that wears a bikini to the beach thinking all along that she looks hot in it? :?
 
Top