Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditTwenty-three percent of Americans surveyed by CNN say Dick Cheney is the worst vice president in history.
Another 41 percent say Cheney has been a poor No. 2.
So, as the draft-dodging, corporation-coddling, obscenity-spewing, torture-sanctioning shredder of the Constitution prepares to leave the position he should have been forced from by Congress, almost two-thirds of Americans rank Cheney as bad or worse than Spiro Agnew.
But that was before Cheney acknowledged on national television that he had violated his oath to defend a Constitution that bars cruel and unusual punishment by promoting the use of waterboarding.
When asked about the use of torture, Cheney told ABC News, "I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency, in effect, came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it."
Those are the words not merely of the worst vice president in history but of a man who still can -- and should -- be impeached.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Worst President AND worst Vice President!
Ever!!
There's no escaping it Republicans...
...you've set the bar to an all time low.
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 12:40am
W&Cheney can be impeached even after leaving office. There is no constitutional prohibition. And it has been done before with corrupt federal officers after they've left office.
The idea is to expose & punish criminal behavior publicly, for the record as precedent, the punishment being a prohibition leveled by the senate, viz. that the convicted person may never hold an office of "public trust" again.
However, Obama & the Dem party leadership are on record many times saying they will do nothing.
So plus ca change ...
Posted by sloper at 12/23/2008 @ 12:48am
Scooter Libby, Trent Lott, Larry Craig, Randy Cunningham, Ted Stevens.
No to mention...
Glenn Murphy Jr., recently-elected Chairman of the Young Republican National Federation, is accused of sexually assaulting a sleeping man
Michael Flory, former head of the Michigan Federation of Young Republicans, pleads guilty to sexual abuse
Republican Senator David Vitter holds press conference acknowledging being on the D.C. Madam's list and past involvement with prostitutes
Republican state Representative and Florida co-Chairman of McCain for President Bob Allen is arrested for soliciting a male undercover police officer, offering to pay $20 to perform oral sex
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 12:51am
Dick Cheney shaves his taint with a splitting maul. You better watch what you say.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/23/2008 @ 07:09am
Dick Cheney helped Al qaida. He strengthened the hands of our enemies and caused the deaths of American soldiers and Marines. If you do not want to believe a lefty, ask a special ops officer;
"It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html
...or if listening to the troops on the ground is not your cup of joe (even if your president told you to listen to the troops) then try the GOP presidential nominee that you voted for :
"The administration's policies and the resulting controversies, the panel concluded, "damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.""
------
(Who was it that published this report again? Was it the Weather undergrown or was it Bill Ayer's new foundation?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/15/2008)
Take it from Darin, our troops and the GOP nominee are just like the Weather Underground.
----
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 07:24am
Hey Crabman
The only place that AQ is metasticizing is in your over active imagination.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/15/2008 @ 11:42am
Yep, in my imagination:
Oct 8, 2006 ... News: Al-Qaeda affiliated group takes responsibility for setting internet coffee shop ablaze in Gaza Strip
Pakistan's interior Affairs advisor Rehman Malik has blamed the anti Shia, Al- Qaeda affiliate terrorist group Lashkar- e- Jhangvi for the Marriott hotel attacks
Algeria: 300 teachers joined Al-Qaeda affiliate.
Nov 26, 2008 ... The al-Shabaab Mujahideen Youth Movement, al Qaeda's affiliate in Somalia and a designated terrorist organization
Dec 11, 2007 ... Al-Qaeda Organisation in the Land of the Islamic Maghreb, to give its full name in ... North African al-Qaeda said it planted the bombs. ..
Al-Qaida has cooperated with a number of known terrorist groups worldwide including:
Armed Islamic Group
Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group
Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Egypt)
Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya
Jamaat Islamiyya
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
Bayt al-Imam (Jordan)
Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Kashmir)
Asbat al Ansar
Hezbollah (Lebanon)
Al-Badar
Harakat ul Ansar/Mujahadeen
Al-Hadith
Harakat ul Jihad
Jaish Mohammed - JEM
Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam
Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Laskar e-Toiba - LET
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (the Philippines)
Abu Sayyaf Group (Malaysia, Philippines)
Al-Ittihad Al Islamiya - AIAI (Somalia)
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Islamic Army of Aden (Yemen)
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 07:34am
"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." --March 16, 2003
"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." -- on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005
"And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. "-March 16, 2003
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 07:43am
Like most people with a healthy sense of the trivial, I objected to the Republicans' impeachment campaign against Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. Now, I wonder whether it would have been tactically smarter to let the Republicans succeed. This would have whetted the Democrats' appetite for revenge, and perhaps we would have seen Cheney and Bush impeached in 2006.
I agree with John Nichols that impeachment is a Constitutional corrective to executive overreach that is sadly underused. It's a shame that we could not have duly impeached such an arrogantly lawless Vice President as Dick Cheney, or such a cluelessly lawless President as George W. Bush. Historians will scratch their heads in wonderment at this administration's reckless disregard for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and for our own Constitution, and at our collective failure to do anything about it.
Posted by JakobFabian at 12/23/2008 @ 07:49am
When 70% of AMericans buy the admin lies about wmd's, then the cons use that as proof that America supports the war.
When 70% of Americans think Cheney is the worst VP.... stats mean nothing.
---
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 12:51am
It is working out quite well for them however! -RIOKORESH
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 07:50am
"How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.""
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 07:53am
Posted by JakobFabian at 12/23/2008 @ 07:49am
If the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings taught us anything, it taught us that impeachment is often used frivolously. I don't believe that is true of a possible Bush/Cheney impeachment, but it will leave the door open to more Clinton style retaliation.
We need to be careful about arguing for more impeachment in general - because it is a bad idea.
Also, curious. Why do you think anyone cares what future historians will think?
Posted by srjenkins at 12/23/2008 @ 08:04am
Cheney is the worst VP ever, his arrogance and lack of interest for human life is deplorable!!! If anyone deserves to go to hell it's that man, he has no conscience about anything he's done and seems still quite proud of himself!!! Cheney is one man I actually despise with a passion, he really is one hateful, cunning article and a poor excuse for a human being as far as I'm concerned. I just hope somewhere along the line he, and Bush come to that are investigated and brought to trial....I'm sure that's only a dream, but there is some merit for that I think.
Posted by Caj at 12/23/2008 @ 08:05am
Posted by JakobFabian at 12/23/2008 @ 07:49am
If the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings taught us anything, it taught us that impeachment is often used frivolously
I hardly think you can equate the impeachment of Bill Clinton to a possible impeachment of Bush!!! What Clinton did was wrong, no doubt, but there is no comparison to that and what Bush has done regarding the Iraq war....the man sent people to their death's based on a lie!!!! I know it's not a popular thing to do as far as I know with Nancy Pelosi, but I think she is wrong and there are good grounds for it and I would not call that anyway frivolous.
Posted by Caj at 12/23/2008 @ 08:56am
Posted by Caj at 12/23/2008 @ 08:56am
I'd suggest rereading my post. JakobFabian and others are advocating for more impeachment and that is problematic.
Bottom line: Bush and Cheney will not be impeached. They also will never be tried in an international court. They both will go on and make lots of money. It's not fair but that's life.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/23/2008 @ 09:27am
Posted by srjenkins at 12/23/2008 @ 09:27am
Maybe impeachment is out of the question, but we can but hope they can be tried in an International court at some point. It does seem very unfair to think that those two will literally get away with murder possibly!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/23/2008 @ 10:04am
Posted by srjenkins at 12/23/2008 @ 09:27am | ignore this person | warn this person
and they will not travel overseas, like Kissinger, lest they be arrested and tried. Bush will drink himself to death, like Franklin Pierce. Cheney will soon succumb to his bad ticker. neither will be missed.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 10:06am
most americans don't even know who dick cheney is.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/23/2008 @ 11:39am
Cheney's poll numbers favorable; Vice president found to be an effective, loyal company man. Washington Times, The, November, 2003
Jennifer Harper, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Vice President Dick Cheney has emerged as a likable and effective stalwart in the Bush administration with consistently favorable ratings and strong party backing, according to a poll released yesterday by Gallup. The survey also quells the notion set forth by persistent critics that Mr. Cheney lurks behind the scenes as a kind of White House puppet master and power broker. "The American people generally like him, Republicans support him, and despite his important role at the White House, he does not outshine his boss ...
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/23/2008 @ 11:41am
Investigative reporting is showing the connection between the Bush/Cheney White House and torture. The articles showing the lead council for Rumsfeld in the Pentagon is now an attorney for Chevron. The recession and run up in oil prices was an event planned by the Bush/Cheney White House. Torture was used to inflame the Iraq war and keep their oil off the market, maybe Iran's and others as well.
These connections need to be investigated and the miscreants prosecuted, while Bush & Cheney need to be hamstrung until they can be brought before the court.
One recent news item, that the information tech for Rove died in a plane crash en route to Washington shows that most of us still are unaware of the threats that the White House has against anyone who wants to come clean. Key leaders in these crimes may break if the right pressure is applied but probably it's going to take more investigation.
This is a political decision, we don't have a true democracy so we need to apply pressure to our leaders in Congress, and Obama when he gets into office. If we don't, then they will do it again in less time than when they were kicked out of the Nixon White House!
Posted by squidboy6 at 12/23/2008 @ 11:42am
polls, polls, polls.........
September 6th, 2008
The latest Rasmussen Reports poll shows that Democrats have good reason to fear Sarah Palin, John McCain's running mate: she is more popular right now than either Barack Obama or John McCain.
Her speech in which she accepted the vice presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention was seen by more than 40 million people. Shortly after it, 58% of Americans told Rasmussen they have a favorable opinion of the Alaska Governor.
Only 37% said they ‘hold an unfavorable view of the self-described hockey mom.'
As Rasmussen points out in its article, the 58% number includes ‘40% with a Very Favorable opinion' while the 37% figure includes ‘18% with a Very Unfavorable view.'
Shortly before her speech, Palin was viewed positively by 52%, clearly showing that her speech was well received.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/23/2008 @ 11:48am
Funded by Saudi money, the Bush library will become a major think tank backing huge media buys to continue promoting the Bush agenda. Cheney will die and be given a hero's funeral to remind us of the good times prior to the "Obama Depression". The UAW will be crushed by the collapse of unionized auto manufacturing, while large financial institutions, "too big to fail" and funded by the TARP program will provide the financial muscle to bring us....
Jeb in 2012!
Jeb will win, of course, given the repeated failure of an Obama administration undermined at every turn by Bush cronies embedded in all areas of the federal government, and repeatedly attacked by a media machine now wholly owned by Bush/Saudi money. Jeb will launch a preemptive strike on Shiite Iran and Iraq. A terrorist nuclear attack on San Francisco (portrayed as "God's punishment for homosexual sin" in the Bush/Saudi media machine and funded by Bush/Saudi money) will "temporarily" suspend the constitution, and any remaining social programs will be privatized to ensure the purity of the market.
"Purity of the market". The lie at the core of this form of totalitarianism.
However, if there was some degree of criminal prosecution now....
Posted by Dwight Wall at 12/23/2008 @ 12:01pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/23/2008 @ 11:41am | ignore this person | warn this person
the Washington Times is of course not a real newspaper.
how is your constitutional crisis coming along up there?
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 12:13pm
This must be a slow news day so libs here are just recycling their fantasises and dreams.
Fortunately that's all they are - fantasy and dreams.
Mr. Nichols seems concerned that Dick Cheney used the F-word. Was Mr. Nichols concerned when John F. Kerry used it? Or when lib entertainers and actors get in the gutter and use that word in fits of mock anger and sanctimonious rage towards Repbulicans and George W. Bush?
Mr. Nichols seems to think that Dick Cheney violated his Constitutional oaths because a few of the terrorist darlings that want to kill us received some rough treatment.
What about the Constitutional oaths to preserve, protect and defend the United States, Mr. Nichols? Why don't they matter to you?
Defending our country against the enemies who want to kill us is not murder. Somehow many of the bloggers here have no understanding of that.
Many of the bloggers here who no doubt subscribe to and believe Algore's take that the Constitution is living and breathing try to make a case that the Constitution has been shredded during the Bush administration.
Nice try. You failed. No, I will admit you libs do not shred the Constitution. You twist it and bend it out of all recognition towards whatever your ends are, unless you find it more convenient to ignore it altogeter!
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 12:20pm
Sorry to yank your chain with my little nightmare, sjchermak. Unfortunately, your rather rigid and blind take on the Constitution just underlines how far the right has fallen into totalitarian dreams of purity. Read Hannah Arendt.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 12/23/2008 @ 12:40pm
Impeachment? Why don't we just turn those war criminals over our respective knee and spank their wittle bottoms?
When the president and vice president lie, steal, murder and torture is all we do is basically say "bad boys!, now go to your room."
Up is down and we swim in the sky in this twisted and certifiably insane country.
Posted by chaoszen at 12/23/2008 @ 1:13pm
Dwight Wall,
Right off the bat you are off base. There is no "take" on the Constitution. It is what it is. It can be amended throught the will of the people, in the same manner that laws can be created, amended or removed. Through the will of the people.
The problem starts with the notion that there is a "take" on the Constitution or that "independent" judges should act upon their "take" to create law from the bench, created by a judge and not through the will of the people, through the legislative process.
There is no opression in place because of this. This is what guarantees our liberty and freedom, that wrongs can be righted through the will of the people.
When things are changed because of one's "take", then that is what opens the gates for oppression and injustice. This is the kind of thinking that leads to belief that, for example, Algore should have been allowed to steal the 2000 election, and an "injustice" of some kind occurred because he was not allowed to do that.
The reason I have mentioned this is because you have pointed me to Hannah Arendt, who I have never heard of.
A quick internet search (all I have time for now) leads to an article about her which talks about, I guess, her writings in opposition to totalitarianism, Stalinist Communism, Nazism, anti-Semitism and imperialism.
All good things to oppose, of course.
What do those things have to do with the U.S. Constitution? The U.S. Constitution represents the opposite of all of those things.
It is only in the fertile mind of far leftists that there is any commonality.
This is odd, because they do not care for the U.S., or it's Constitution as it exists to begin with, but then claim the Constitution they otherwise hate has been harmed in the last 8 years.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 1:21pm
"Mr. Nichols seems to think that Dick Cheney violated his Constitutional oaths because a few of the terrorist darlings that want to kill us received some rough treatment. "
reply from a special forces officer working on the gathering og intel in IRaq ""It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans."
So, SJ, why do want to help Al Qaeda? Why do you want to help the formar Ba-athists in Iraq?
Fri Nov 28, 2003- "A former Iraqi general suspected of financing anti-coalition activities died yesterday while being interrogated by US forces in the town of Qaim, 200 miles north-west of Baghdad."
He died before he could give up his intel, killed by US troops putting him upside down in a sleeping bag, then wrapping the bag with an extension cord. While this may make SJ "feel" good, it harmed the war effort .
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 1:24pm
sjchermak, please pardon us for presuming to suggest that the VPOTUS should ascribe to a higher standard of civility, decorum, and respect for his own office than a punk rocker or a singer in a country band.
What were we thinking. You are so right. Iggy Pop drops the f-bomb all the time, so it must be OK for the veep to do the same.
Posted by canaro71 at 12/23/2008 @ 1:30pm
"What about the Constitutional oaths to preserve, protect and defend the United States, Mr. Nichols?"-SJ
What about defending against "..enemies both foriegn and domestic"?
What about officials that help the enemy and strengthen their hands, what about officials (and their followers) that killed Americans by their support of torture?
Do you have any room in your ideology for yourself SJ?
"the troops" say that Rumsfeld and Chenay and Bush killed Americans.
The Senate Armed Services Committee republicans say that Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney helped our enemies.
I guess we no longer "listen to the troops", as they disagree with Rush and Bush.
SJ, still waiting for any proof that Saddam was a threat to you. Something other than if, maybe, might, could...
No threat= no defending from a threat.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 1:30pm
crabwalk,
You say "the troops".
All the troops believe this? Or just troops that have your view of the world?
You seem to have forgotten that the troops are of course American, and thus there is a wide range of belief and opinion amongst them - no different than any other segment of the population.
Where is your poll, or canvass, or questionaire results on what the entire body of troops believe?
You are waiting for proof that Saddam was a threat to me?
What are you waiting for? Lvliberty1 has provided posting after posting in the last week or so on this, so why are you waiting? It has already been provided, and then, as always, ignored by you.
You ignore proof, then ask for proof.
Do you get dizzy when you run around in circles?
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 1:42pm
"Or when lib entertainers and actors get in the gutter and use that word in fits of mock anger and sanctimonious rage towards Repbulicans and George W. Bush? "
do they do that on the floor of the senate, and direct the f-bomb towards a Senator? Gee, I missed that. What I do remember is this: Dick Cheney said he and Bush would resore civility to the White House, along with credibility.
"Go fuck yourself. Up the ass. "
Said to Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor June 25, 2004 when talking about Halliburton.
SJ also told us that the admin NEVER tried to link Al Qaeda and Saddam
"We haven't really had the time yet to pore through all those records in Baghdad. We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions. "
Interview with Rocky Mountain News, January 2004"
Tell us SJ, why did Halliburton do so much business with Saddam Hussein while Dick Cheney was CEO? Why did they do business with Iran while Dick Cheney was CEO?
Why does Dick Cheney help the enemies of the US so often and so regularly?
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 1:44pm
"All the troops believe this? Or just troops that have your view of the world? "
Well, the guy that killed Zarqawri gets some benefit. That is who wrote the op-ed.
What about the Army Field Guide and the guy that wrote it? Does he count? He says the torture you support has lengthened the war.How about George Bush's CIA?
"Thursday, February 17, 2005; Page A01
The insurgency in Iraq continues to baffle the U.S. military and intelligence communities, and the U.S. occupation has become a potent recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, top U.S. national security officials told Congress yesterday.
"Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists," CIA Director Porter J. Goss told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Gen Shinseki told you to have more troops. That did not fit with your worldview, now 6 years later you like to talk about the success of...more troops.
It seems like you listen to Jack Bauer and the "media" that bring you Jack Bauer.
How do I know that these people I listen to are correct? Because 130,000 American troops are still in Iraq.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 1:57pm
"What are you waiting for? Lvliberty1 has provided posting after posting in the last week or so on this, so why are you waiting? It has already been provided, and then, as always, ignored by you. "
What Luvvy supplied was
"if...maybe...could have...if...might have..."
What I supplied is...
no wmd's found in Iraq.
No connections between Saddam Hussein and any terrorist attack on the US.
War began March 2003.
War continues Dec 23, 2008. 130,000 american troops stationed in Iraq. 4210 dead. Iraqi government arrests members of it's Interior Dept. No new democracies in the Middle East.
BOO!
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 2:03pm
"Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists," CIA Director Porter J. Goss
"The administration's policies and the resulting controversies damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority."-12 Senate Republicans, Senate Armed Services Committee
"The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans." - Michael Alexander (psuedonym) former Special Forces intel officer, stationed in Iraq.
Normally, wouldn't you listen to these people SJ? Or is it you who are putting ideology ahead of common sense and the words of those you vote for and support?
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 2:13pm
"Because, if we'd gone to Baghdad, we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody with us. It would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq.... Once you got to Iraq, and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place?... If you take down the central government of Iraq, you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. It's a quagmire if you go that far. The question for the President, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein was, How many additional dead Americans was Saddam worth. And our judgment was, Not very many, and I think we got it right. "
SJ, Darin...
Agree or disagree with the above satement?
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 2:16pm
crabwalk,
What you supplied has nothing to do with the need to take out Saddam.
Everybody knows now that no wmds were found in Iraq, and that while there were times Iraq and al-Qaeda crossed paths there have been no links between Saddam and 9/11.
Many people (not including you) know Saddam most likely would have been remanufacturing WMD again.
You said "if..maybe..could have..if...might have".
So responsible people (not you crabwalk, but George W. Bush and Tony Blair) knew you do not let this go and have the ifs and maybes turn into reality. The consequences were too grave to take a chance that mass death would not happen.
So you stop it before it starts. You do not allow it to start, and then either suffer the massive death or at the least the huge cost of stopping it at a later date.
We learned a lot of this from the circumstances of World War II.
But you already know all this and brush it off and ignore it.
So this argument will continue over and over and over again.
But, the important thing is, we do not have to argue about why Saddam was not stopped in time and who is to blame for allowing Saddam to re-arm, get WMD in the hands of terrorists, and then have the terrorists wreak havoc at who knows what location, in America, the UK, Israel or who knows where.
We do not have to analzye who allowed the calamaty to happen or why it was allowed to happen.
So it is really no big deal to go in a continual circular loop-de-loop with you arguing about things that you are clearly wrong about.
Having people like you continue to cite all these wrongs you think (in your imagination) occurred is a small price to pay for the privilage of not having to debate why Saddam was not stopped in time.
BECAUSE HE WAS, you can't change that!
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 2:17pm
crabwalk,
You are probably citing a quote from Dick Cheney in the early 1990's (after Kuwait)......that is my guess... not relevant 11 years later.....after Saddam would not comply with what was required of him, but after attempts to get him to behave had failed.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 2:19pm
The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is.
Speech delivered at the Cato Institute,
Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States. ---- In October 1986, Cheney introduced legislation to create a new import tax that would have caused the price of oil to soar by billions of dollars per yearJune 23, 19
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 2:21pm
"But, the important thing is, we do not have to argue about why Saddam was not stopped in time and who is to blame for allowing Saddam to re-arm, get WMD in the hands of terrorists, and then have the terrorists wreak havoc at who knows what location, in America, the UK, Israel or who knows where. "
Yes, that was Reagan.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 2:23pm
Did Islamic terrorism go up or down after Saddam was thrown from power?
When did Saddam supply Islamic terrorist groups with wmd's?
Why would he have given wmd's to a group that wanted to overthrow him?
Where were the drone planes, the 20,000 liters of Anthrax, the mobile weapons facilities?
Why would UNSCOM inspections have stopped in 2003?
why would the UN have taken the seals off of his yeallow cake supply?
why would Saddam Hussein have weakend his position as Dear Leader of Iraq by giving wmd's to Islamic radicals, taking the risk that it would be tracked back to him?
if, maybe, could have...
"Wolf, you can come up with all kinds of what-ifs; you've got to deal with the reality on the ground"- January 24, 2007
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 2:28pm
You are tripping over yourself, crabwalk.
You are admitting Saddam had WMD before. I can not account for your prior statements on this, but I have seen some in the lib blogosphere contend there were NEVER any WMD, ever.
You then imply that President Reagan re-armed Saddam, got WMD in the hands of terrorists and then wreaked havoc in America.
Where in America did this happen?
Hijacked aircraft, not WMD were used to attack America on September 11, and you on the left (including you, above) over and over again contend that there is no link between Saddam and 9/11, yet in the same "thread" you now say that Ronald Reagan made it possible for Saddam to make it possible for terrorsts to attack America!
Your mind is overflowing just like an overflowing commode!
You know full well that due to Mr. Peanut (Jimmy Carter) we lost an ally in Iran, and that due to the cold war with the Soviet Union that America did not start it was important for us to have an ally in the region, and that circumstance drove us to provide support to Saddam when Iraq was at war with Iran.
All situations that were in the early 80's, driven by the fact that we faced an adversary (the Soviet Union) that wanted to communize us, and that we had been led by an incompetent president (Mr. Peanut), and during a time well before Saddam's horrors were fully known.
It is easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback. It is harder to see possible future danger and pro-actively do what is necessary.
You are good at being a Monday Morning quarterback for the Lib team, and thus you are lousy at the other, as well as most of the rest of you on your Lib team.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 2:36pm
that is my guess... not relevant 11 years later.....after Saddam would not comply with what was required of him, but after attempts to get him to behave had failed.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 2:19pm
Did Saddam comply with the UN resolution telling him to leave Kuwait?
Has Israel complied with every UN resolution passed against Israel? Would you like the long list of UN resolutions ignored by Israel? Does that make me an anti-Semite?
Or are you cherry picking which UN resolutions you want to see abided by?
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 2:37pm
crabwalk,
Did Islamic terrorism go up or down after Saddam was thrown from power?
ANSWER: It is about the same, we had Pan Am 103, the first World Trade Center Attack, the U.S.S. Cole, etc before 2003. We have been at war for a long time, but did not fight the war under the previous president (Slick Willie). We are still at war and will be for a long time.
When did Saddam supply Islamic terrorist groups with wmd's?
ANSWER: He did not do that, George W. Bush and Tony Blair stopped him.
Why would he have given wmd's to a group that wanted to overthrow him?
ANSWER: There are many different terror organizations, Saddam would have only allowed those who were no threat to him to have WMD. If they paid him for the WMD, that would have given him money for more palaces.
Where were the drone planes, the 20,000 liters of Anthrax, the mobile weapons facilities?
ANSWER: None in 2003. We do not know what became of any that did exist, but libs don't care, only care they were not there. Another excuse to crucify George W. Bush. Libs aren't concerned they could still be out there somewhere, or that they would have existed again if Saddam had not been stopped. Lib crucification of George W. Bush was the Lib priority.
Why would UNSCOM inspections have stopped in 2003?
ANSWER: Because at some point Hans Blix would have declared Saddam free of WMD, and the world and people here at home would not have been concerned about Saddam anymore. Saddam would have then been free to go back to making WMD.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 2:45pm
Cheney's brazen flaunting of his own criminality can only be explained by his personal confidence that he will never suffer any consequences beyond being held in nearly universal contempt by the rest of humanity. Psychopaths are typically indifferent to how others regard them. He is either counting on a pardon from the pardoner-in-chief or on the reluctance of Democrats to try him for war crimes, given the culpability of certain Democratic leaders in those very crimes. For my money, all of them should be put on trial, including Democratic enablers. Otherwise, I fear, we, as a nation, will not learn the lesson that lawlessness in high places cannot be tolerated.
Posted by robgo2 at 12/23/2008 @ 2:45pm
"You are admitting Saddam had WMD before"
Yes, he used it on his own people, back in the 80's. First Reagan tried to balme it on Iran, till the truth came out. Then he STILL backed the regime of Saddam Hussein, probably because he agreed with Cheneys philosphy of going were the bidness is.
However, Husein Kamal told UNSCOM all of those wmd's were destroyed. The only thing found post 1991 was a stockpile of chemical weapons, found around 1997, and destoyed.
----
"You know full well that due to Mr. Peanut (Jimmy Carter) we lost an ally in Iran,"
Ahh, do some more research there SJ. Carter did not put The Shah in power. (I note the tone of repect for the office of the President)
so, if planes, not wmd's, were used to attack America, should we not have taken Saddams planes from him?
"It is easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback. It is harder to see possible future danger and pro-actively do what is necessary. "
It is even easier to develop plots out of thin air and scare sheep. How are we doing with Pakistan? Saudi Arbia and it's funding of Islamic terrorist?
No wmd's found in Iraq
No ME democracies functioning.
The policies of Bush/Cheney have lead to an increase of AQ membership, according to the CIA, Senate Armed Services Committee and Intel officers. The "lib team" I hang out with , I guess.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 2:50pm
crabwalk,
You ask "Or are you cherry picking which UN resolutions you want to see abided by?
ANSWER: Yes, the U.N. resolutions against Israel are wrong.
For the most part, the U.N. as an institution is wrong. It does not promote world peace, it has inhibited it.
I only cite that the U.N. had resolutions against Saddam to show that it was not just George W. Bush, but the world that had an axe to grind against Saddam.
You on the left always want world approval of stuff. Yet citing that the U.N. had problems with Saddam gains no traction with some of you on the left, you still promote the "Saddam was no threat" B.S.
Of course, the U.N. had an axe to grind about Saddam, but, as always, the U.N. was going to do nothing about it.
By the way, when the president of Iraq talked at the U.N. recently, spewing venom about Israel, with many in the audience applauding, if I had been Mayor Bloomberg I would have immediately kicked the U.N.'s ass out of New York City.
Right then and there I would have found some city ordanance or fire code or something and said the U.N. buildings were in violation of that code or ordanance and I would have evicted the U.N. immediately and declared that all U.N. property had now become NYC property.
U.N. members would have been escorted to the airport ASAP and have been required to leave, if being a U.N. member was the only permission they had to be in the country. That permission would have been immediately revoked.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 2:53pm
When did Saddam supply Islamic terrorist groups with wmd's?
ANSWER: He did not do that, George W. Bush and Tony Blair stopped him.
---Circular reasoning.---
Why would UNSCOM inspections have stopped in 2003?
ANSWER: Because at some point Hans Blix would have declared Saddam free of WMD, and the world and people here at home would not have been concerned about Saddam anymore. Saddam would have then been free to go back to making WMD.
---Like he did after Clinton misused UNSCOM and got them thrown out of Iraq, for years?I guess that is when he made those 20,000 liters of anthrax that didn't exit---
Where were the drone planes, the 20,000 liters of Anthrax, the mobile weapons facilities?
ANSWER: None in 2003.
----Now you are saying he DID NOT have them? So:
1: the inspection program worked
2: Bush was wrong, or lying----
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 2:54pm
ANSWER: Yes, the U.N. resolutions against Israel are wrong
Buwhahahahahahaha.
Yep, facts only, no ideology here, folks.
Israel attacks outside of it's boundaries. Israel kills women and children. It has stockpiles of undeclared wmd's.
But, they do that stuff for defense only, such as keeping Palestinians from having there own State. Whereas Saddam killed the Kurds for attacking him and desiring there own State, which in no way is defensive. (not defending Saddam, only pointing out the flaws in your "argument, SJ)
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 3:05pm
crabwalk,
In this loop-de-loop, we really are covering all of the bases, for what? The umpteenth time?
The inspection program was not working, other than to serve Saddam's purposes. At some point Saddam, I believe, realized his program was going to have to go into abayance in order for "inspections" to find him "free of WMD"... with the goal being off of the hook to remake WMD again....And.. as you know.. most people including Democrats and Saddam's own generals believed Saddam to have WMD and be a threat, so saying so is not lying when all information points to the existence of WMD.
Don't forget.. because of Saddam's obstruction, we could not determine the actual facts... that in itself is reason enough to have taken Saddam out.. we needed to know the acutal facts and Saddam would not permit it.
On Iran and the Shah, you do remember that as part of his overall concern for human rights in all places except in communist countries, Mr. Peanut put pressure on the Shah to open things up in Iran.
This enabled the forces opposed to him to gain strength and overthrow him.
As a result:
1. The Iranian people got to enjoy a government much more oppressive than the Shah ever was.
2. We and others get to enjoy an Iranian regime that is destructive and supports terror and wants to see Israel destroyed and who is working on the means to do it.
Not bad for a day's work, eh Mr. Peanut? Mr. Peanut, I guess, really set the standard for incompetence. Not many have had the knack he had to really screw things up!
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 3:09pm
"The inspection program was not working, other than to serve Saddam's purposes"- 12/23/2008 @ 3:09pm
Where were the drone planes, the 20,000 liters of Anthrax, the mobile weapons facilities?
ANSWER: None in 2003. -12/23/2008 @ 2:45pm
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 3:16pm
crabwalk,
You say Israel keeps the Palestinians from having their own state.
God almighty, I certainly would hope so! Why should a country (Israel) allow people (the Palestinians) who are sworn to it's (Israel's) destruction have their own state?
Remember, the goal in 1948 was a two state solution. Israel did not oppose this. The Arab world and Palestinians were in opposition to it then and have not backed off one inch since.
As you remember, Israel was not even in the territories until 1967. After repeated all out wars to destroy it, Israel took terrority to allow it to defend itself.
The only people to make peace with Israel were Egypt (Sadat) and Jordan (King Hussein) who are both now dead. Sadat died because he was killed for what he did, and many tried to kill the King also.
Otherwise, the Palestinians have never given in inch during all the peace processes over the years.
Demands are made for Israel to concede things. Eventually they do, and then right after Palestinians go back to trying to kill Israelis again.
We have seen what has happened in Gaza. How anybody can demand Israel must concede more land or try to claim Israel is to blame for the troubles in the Middle East is beyond me, but by golly, you seem to do that.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 3:17pm
Typo correction,
Above I said, in error: "Eventually they do, and then right after Palestinians go back to trying to kill Israelis again. "
I should have said: "Eventually they do, and then right after Palestinians go back to killing Israelis again. "
I should not have used the word "trying". Palestinian efforts to kill Israelis succeed far too often.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 3:40pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/23/2008 @ 3:22pm
Look up what the Saudi rulers told the US/brits in 1948 regarding the creation of Israel and what their response would be.
I am willing to bet if the Sauds asked you to break off Riverside/San Diego and give it to the Palestinians you might object, for decades.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 3:44pm
I blame all sides for the conflicts in the ME.
to say that the US and brits are not at fault is naive, at best. To absolve Haus Saud is naive. To absolve Iran is stupid.
Ye shall reap what you sow.
You have sowed a 6 year war. You have kidnapped and tortured.What did you expect in return?
Oh well, as you guys say, we are not quite as bad as those we fight, so therfore we are better than them and should be thanked for not being as bad as Saddam Hussein.
At least the Senate Amred Services Committee republicans don't blame me for helping AQ.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 3:48pm
in a nutshell, the most cheney-esque component of our post 9/11 foreign policy is this: we are facing a unique type of threat (unique to the united states, that is), and therefore, we (meaning our government) must bypass the national and international law in order to protect and defend the interests of the united states.
well, anyone with even a shred of intelligence knows that if our political leaders are allowed to break laws, with impunity, then they will continue to go on breaking them until they are held accountable.
period.
i would love to hear from anyone who disagrees.
Posted by darladoon at 12/23/2008 @ 3:53pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/23/2008 @ 3:22pm
One thing I have always wondered, if the Palestinians are in need of their own state, why don't the Arabs give them a chunk of their land, in addition to Jordan?
The simple answer is that it helps them to use the Palestinians. Do any of you honestly think Saddam Hussein gave a rats ass about Palestinians? No, he did not, but it gave him an excuse to kill Israelis via Hamas.
Remove Israel as a foil, remove the Palestinian cause as a foil....
I am sick to death of both "sides" of this issue. They cause more harm than they are worth. Both sides are guilty of attrocoties. Were it up to me neither would get any money or help form the US.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 3:53pm
cheney has essentially admitted to breaking the law, on the defense that he can do whatever he wants to protect the united states.
does anyone believe that this would hold up in court, should cheney be tried?
Posted by darladoon at 12/23/2008 @ 3:55pm
"His refusal to change into some sniveling apologetic wimp at the end of his office speaks to the strength of his personal convictions and irritates the left (also a good thing)"
boy it's sure a good thing that liberty isn't cheney's lawyer! (or a bad thing, pending your point of view).
and of course, lawbreaking only irritates "the left."
Posted by darladoon at 12/23/2008 @ 3:57pm
crabwalk,
You say there is a 6 year war.
Earth to crabwalk - it is going to go on much longer than 6 years.
With Islamofascisim rearing it's ugly head in many places in the world, such as in Europe where Islamic immigrants with no intention of assimilating are now succcessfully dictating what life is to be like (demanding the use of Sharia law, prohibiting the teaching of the Holocaust in public school, etc), this battle is going to go on for a long time.
I don't know which will be the tougher battle, however - battling terrorists who throw hissy fits and kill people because of cartoons in Danish newspapers, or fighting off the impulses and efforts of leftists here and abroad to concede, capitulate and surrender to our enemies, all the while citing ourselves to blame for making them (the Islamofascists) angry.
So we have to fight two battles, the first to succeed at staving off the leftist impulse for "peace" through surrender, in order to be able to continue the second battle - to fight and defeat terror.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 4:00pm
crabwalk,
You have said something I agree with. You have said that the Arabs are using the Palestinians.
Absolutely true. The Arabs are using the Palestinians successfully, it is to their best interest to keep this conflict boiling because all the hatred and blame is directed towards Israel.
Their so-called support of the Palestinian "cause" is totally hypocritical.
The solution, though is not to remove Israel as a foil. Israel is not a "foil" it has a totally legitimate right to exist.
What, may you ask, is my solution?
My answer is, I DO NOT HAVE ONE.
I do not know how to bring peace to the Middle East when the people who cause the lack of peace (Arabs, Islamofascists, Palestinians) are committed to Israels destruction, have no intention of giving one inch in the way of concessions, and operate in a world which is totally anti-Semetic and hates Israel.
That is one of the big problems here. Most of the world hates Jews and thus there is no world pressure on Arabs or Palestinians to ever accept the existence of Israel, in fact, the world attitude encourages the opposite, continual hatred towards Israel and continual efforts to destroy it.
Until somebody can figure out how to change that world attitude, which maybe then would start to enable peace in the Middle East (i.e., if those who seek Israels destruction knew world opinion and actions were opposed to them), my belief is that Israel has to do whatever is necessary to defend itself and ensure it's survival.
Hopefully, in the near future, that will include destruction of any capability Iran has to build a nuclear weapon.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 4:10pm
Posted by crabwalk at 12/23/2008 @ 3:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
get over it. Israel is here. it will never go away. the US too was founded on stolen land. and they kept right on stealing. genocide? been there done that. slavery? yup, we reveled in that. Untermenschen? we kept that up for 100 years after the end of slavery. the blacks and the indians are still getting the shaft. we have work to do. sobbing about '48 won't do.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 4:48pm
<i>if our political leaders are allowed to break laws, with impunity, then they will continue to go on breaking them until they are held accountable.
Posted by darladoon at 12/23/2008 @ 3:53pm </i>
I completely agree. Some others may disagree with me on this, but I believe that if Cheney's statement constitutes an admission of complicity to torture, he's just provided sufficient justification for impeachment.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/23/2008 @ 5:07pm
emile,
Israel did not steal any land from anybody, and Israelis do not now and have never committed genocide, nor does slavery exist in Israel.
There were plenty of treaties between settlers and Native Americans, that account for some of the land that is now the United States.
You focus on all the negatives in our history, but at least you are telling crabwalk to get over being more negative.
You say we have work to do. Of course, the American experience is and always will be a work in progress. The glass of water is half full, not half empty.
What is Untermenschen? Is that segregation and Jim Crow laws? Just asking, I have never heard that word.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 5:07pm
emile duBois,
I see from one of the other threads you said your mother tounge is German, so I guess Untermenschen is German.
I wish I knew more German than I do, I know very little.
I have been trying to teach myself French recently - I do know the middle part of O Canada in French.
Usually when it is sung bilingual the first and end parts are in English and the middle part is in French.
So feel free to teach me any German you want.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 5:20pm
Shortly before her speech, Palin was viewed positively by 52%, clearly showing that her speech was well received.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/23/2008 @ 11:48am
Sarah Palin's speech may have been well received, she does a good job of reading her lines well!!!! I don't think we have anything to worry about though, as when to comes to interviews she falls very short in the "smarts" dept!!! No, I think Sarah Palin has a long way to go before she can even think of running for President...being a hockey mom, joe six pack, pigs and lipstick, gosh darn and get back to ya...are not exactly what is required in the President's vocabulary I would say.
Posted by Caj at 12/23/2008 @ 5:53pm
Impeached? Hell, he should be arrested for terrorism then waterboarded until he gives up what he knows about 9/11!
Posted by OldUncleDave at 12/23/2008 @ 5:57pm
Caj,
You say Sarah Palin has a long way to go before she can even think of running for President.
The time span now is about 2 years. The presidental campaigns in this country last about 2 years now, which means 2 years from now the campaign for President for the 2012 election will be getting going in earnest.
But two years really isn't that long of a time.
So you think "we" (I assume you are referring to fellow libs) do not have anything to "worry" about.
I believe you do! That will be amusing, to see the blogs on The Nation after Gov. Palin becomes President Palin.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 6:04pm
I completely agree. Some others may disagree with me on this, but I believe that if Cheney's statement constitutes an admission of complicity to torture, he's just provided sufficient justification for impeachment.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/23/2008 @ 5:07pm
I agree with you completely, this man has no conscience what so ever and feels he has the authority to do whatever he likes. He is arrogant and cunning and that constant sneer on his face needs wiping off....I really despise him. I would love to see him impeached, but I doubt we will ever get that pleasure!!
Posted by Caj at 12/23/2008 @ 6:13pm
Caj,
I have to admit I would not like to be you, either now or later.
That is because you will be disappointed in the near term when Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are NOT impeached, and then disappointed in the long term when Governor Sarah Palin becomes President Palin.
So you are going to have a lot to be down in the dumps about.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 6:23pm
I believe you do! That will be amusing, to see the blogs on The Nation after Gov. Palin becomes President Palin.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 6:04pm
You mean they actually have a class that she can take to make her smarter within the next two years? Well, I wish her luck, some people are born smart and intelligent and some are not....I think Sarah was way at the back of the line when smarts were given out. I think she is better off selling yet another plane on E Bay and looking out for some more bridges to nowhere!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/23/2008 @ 6:23pm
Caj,
I guess this line that formed (when smarts were given out) was too long and Algore didn't bother to get in. Maybe after all these years that is the explanation.
Were there separate lines for book smarts and common sense smarts?
Maybe, because if so then I guess Jimmy Carter forgot to get into both lines. He got his book smarts, but didn't stop to pick up any common sense.
Hill and Bill DID get into both lines. They picked up the book smarts and the common sense smarts. They have both, and have put both to use to further the advancement of Hill and Bill. No good has come for anybody else (other than Hill and Bill) as a result of their possession of both.
George W. Bush picked up both and put them to good use, despite the perception and false promotion that he has neither and has not put them to good use.
Lyndon B. Johnson picked up both and tried his best to put them to good use for the betterment of America. He also has been much maligned over the years. Were he still alive today his common sense smarts would tell him to try other things to attempt to cure poverty instead of stuff he tried that did not work. He would understand this.
Modern day libs profess they have plenty of book smarts, but have very little ablilty to learn from mistakes or history and thus have no common sense or conscience. This is the reason they continue to promote policy that has failed to cure poverty while at the same time condemning and crucifying those who do not agree with them as opressors of the poor.
Thus, not only was JFK not like modern day libs (subject being discussed on another thread), but neither was LBJ, because LBJ would be interested in trying to stop poverty, whereas modern day libs are interested in promoting liberalism and socialist utopia.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 6:36pm
I believe you do! That will be amusing, to see the blogs on The Nation after Gov. Palin becomes President Palin. Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 6:04pm
omigodwhattanass. how is any discussion possible with this unhinged fellow?
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 6:37pm
emile,
I am not the one that is going to be "unhinged" after Sarah Palin becomes President.
It will be a lot of lib bloggers, along with the staff such as Katrina Vanden Heuvel, that will be unhinged.
They will not be able to cope with how America turned to common sense rather than enlightened lib thought.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 6:45pm
omigodwhattanass. how is any discussion possible with this unhinged fellow?
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 6:37pm
You are right, I think I am wasting my time with sjchermark: I don't think it matters what you say it does not make any difference. Sarah Palin is in his/her blood apparently and I guess I'll leave it there.
Posted by Caj at 12/23/2008 @ 6:46pm
hey, repugs, remember you lost to a black guy. hahahahaha
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 7:01pm
emile duBois and Caj,
I am sure that you two no doubt think that lib bloggers on The Nation - hoping, dreaming, lusting for and salivating over the possibility of an impeachement that in reality there is no possibility of whatsoever - makes perfect sense.
Libs want to impeach people that have done nothing wrong. Libs want to impeach them even after they have left office. Libs have succeeded in electing a lib to be the next President, but they can not let go of their angst over the last one.
Libs truly live in a perpetual state of misery. I guess it is the nature of a lib to carp over the perceived wrongs that exist. Even when libs succeed in electing a lib as President, the lib propensity to be miserable is so great that the average lib will forget about that and search far and wide for something - anything - that the lib can complain about and showcase as some kind of grinding, horrible wrong, with the lib always promoting how the libs are the white knights who will slay all of the dragons and right all of the wrongs and make things better for people.
All the while the libs overlook that their continual pursuit of this misery makes things far worse for people, but then that gives the lib the opportunity to showcase that and blame that on anybody else but libs.
So, libs do not want to be successful because then that would drive liberalism out of business. There would be nothing to complain about if we lived in socialist utopia where everything is wonderful and totally equal and totally fair, in the mind of the lib.
So lib complaints are a good thing, because the more libs complain and the more miserable libs are, then that is a sign that things are better for all in this country, were all are actually equal and free.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 7:10pm
emile duBois and Caj,
I am sure that you two no doubt think that lib bloggers on The Nation - hoping, dreaming, lusting for and salivating over the possibility of an impeachement that in reality there is no possibility of whatsoever - makes perfect sense.
Libs want to impeach people that have done nothing wrong. Libs want to impeach them even after they have left office. Libs have succeeded in electing a lib to be the next President, but they can not let go of their angst over the last one.
Libs truly live in a perpetual state of misery. I guess it is the nature of a lib to carp over the perceived wrongs that exist. Even when libs succeed in electing a lib as President, the lib propensity to be miserable is so great that the average lib will forget about that and search far and wide for something - anything - that the lib can complain about and showcase as some kind of grinding, horrible wrong, with the lib always promoting how the libs are the white knights who will slay all of the dragons and right all of the wrongs and make things better for people.
All the while the libs overlook that their continual pursuit of this misery makes things far worse for people, but then that gives the lib the opportunity to showcase that and blame that on anybody else but libs.
So, libs do not want to be successful because then that would drive liberalism out of business. There would be nothing to complain about if we lived in socialist utopia where everything is wonderful and totally equal and totally fair, in the mind of the lib.
So lib complaints are a good thing, because the more libs complain and the more miserable libs are, then that is a sign that things are better for all in this country, were all are actually equal and free.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 7:11pm
emile duBois said:
"hey, repugs, remember you lost to a black guy. hahahahaha "
==================
You blog long enough with libs, and eventually they can not help themselves, their true nature comes out. In this case, emile, out of nowhere, starts throwing the race card and falsely insinuating that Republicans are racist and have problems with Barack Obama simply because he is Black.
This is all pulled out of emile's rear end. It has no basis in fact.
This showcases modern liberalism, in all it's totally hypocricsy and reverse racism and bitterness and anger.
Out of nowhere, emile just starts throwing the race card, for no reason whatsoever.
Anybody that wants to see what liberalism is all about, well, here it is, provided by emile.
As for you emile, lets go. How about you start posting quotes from prominent Repbulicans or Conservatives indicating problems with Barack Obama just because he is Black.
Get started at your attempt to do that - just to let you know ahead of time, you will come up empty.
It is quite interesting, how you and Caj are comiserating how ignorant I am because of my comments about Sarah Palin, and then for no reason other than natural lib instinct you trip yourself up big time and showase how ignorant and biased and hypocritical and probably racist as well you really are.
I guess if one wants to win arguments over libs, just let the lib keep talking and eventually the libs will prove himself or herself wrong.
Snarky libs, congratulating themselves on how smart and enlightened they are, ultimately prove themselves to be ignorant biased fools.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 7:32pm
In this case, emile, out of nowhere, starts throwing the race card and falsely insinuating that Republicans are racist...
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 7:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
SJerk, Republicans have dominated the national government for 15 years or so. Name ALL of the black Republicans that have served in Congress in that time.
(It shouldn't take too long - there were a grand total of 2.)
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 8:12pm
you on the left, you still promote the "Saddam was no threat" B.S. Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 2:53pm
Your logic is so hard to follow, it reminds me of trying to listen to a spun meth addict.
But anyway even if Saddam was some sort of threat. The President, the Military or the Congress has no right to invade a soverign nation that may pose a threat at sime time in the future. There has to be an imminent threat of attack. Not some speculation based on lies.
Last time I checked we still have the remnants of a constitution
Posted by chaoszen at 12/23/2008 @ 8:16pm
In fact, in the last 100 years, there have been 97 blacks elected to Congress - 94 to the House and 3 to the Senate.
Of those 97, black Democrats outnumber black Republicans 93 - 4.
So Sjerk, whatever lies at the heart of THAT, you 'con' Republicans OWN it - period!
Please, at least try living in the reality the rest of us inhabit, OK?
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 8:21pm
The Beast, CHERMAK, outgassed as he dismounted from his horse.
He fell to one knee before his master, the dark lord CHENEY.
"My lord," CHERMAK said. "How may I serve you?"
Darth Cheney gazed down upon his gibbering servant, uncertain as to whether it would be more fun to kick him or to taunt him.
"You're a punk, chermak. You disgust me with your drivel about the left and the right. And don't you ever tire of typing? I sure tire of hearing about it. Get a life. And while you're at it, get me a cigar... my lip is starting to regain it's natural shape. Hey, wait a minute! Old Dubya is on holiday with his stepford wife. Wanna help me test out my new electro shock device? It'll make a liberal out of you!!"
"No,no, my lord," CHERMAK wailed. "Have I displeased you somehow? Have mercy on my pitiful soul! Those on the left are nothing but a scourge upon our beautiful earth. They yearn, ever so longingly, for something they call PEACE ON EARTH. I recoil from the mere thought of it."
Darth Cheney smiled down upon his still kneeling, still outgassing servant.
"And well you should, SJ". Cheney moved so that he was slightly upwind of his idiot follower.
"Chermak, you stink. Have you ever bathed? I mean in this lifetime? All that bloviating and pontificating really makes you sweat. At least use some deodorant. Take my advice; don't let those liberals get to you. It's an endless, thankless task that you have embarked upon, one that leaves many more questions than answers. I got some advice for you. You know what I do? I mean, before I reach my letter limit?" Cheney smiled darkly.
"No my lord. What do YOU do?", chermak sobbed.
"I go hunting. Wanna come?"
Posted by ficheye at 12/23/2008 @ 9:38pm
Sarah Palin, warrior princess from God, rode into the encampment. She had noticed on her approach that the dark lord CHENEY was abusing her servant CHERMAK again. She had plans for him, so she reined in her steed and jumped from the saddle, walking quickly towards the two.
"I go hunting, Wanna come?" CHENEY was saying. He leaned his head back and cackled loudly. CHERMAK held both hands over his head, as if to ward off a blow. Why didn't dark lord CHENEY like him?
"Hey, DICK! Hands off! Little dog CHERMAK has some blogging to do, and by the great lucky caribou, he's gonna blog. We got some lefties that need some schoolin'."
CHENEY flinched and held his hands before his eyes to lessen the bright glare of her teeth.
"And by the way", she continued, "Isn't your ass in a sling about that waterboarding thing? You're a nutcase, you know that?"
She walked toward him and pinched his cheek lightly. CHENEY looked down, blushing furiously.
"But you're MY little nutcase", she chirped affectionately. Now, what's with all the locals and this PEACE ON EARTH crap? I've had more of that than I can stand for this election cycle. I gotta shoot somethin'quick, before I start prayin' again, and it might as well be one of them."
She grabbed her rifle from the saddle case, and casually drifted the barrel in the direction of several villagers who had gathered in awe of the sight of their lords. They were almost never seen in full daylight. Instead, they seemed to prefer the darkness or high priced department stores At the sight of the gun they scurried away in several different directions, disappearing into the brush.
"Damn!," she said. CHENEY chuckled.
"You gotta fire as soon as you pick that thing up!" he said. "Want some stew? It's fresh donkey!"
She sighed.
"You betcha."
Posted by ficheye at 12/23/2008 @ 10:40pm
Posted by comanchenation at 12/24/2008 @ 12:02am
Note to comanchenation: you are a part of the "extremist fringe".
Posted by srjenkins at 12/24/2008 @ 12:19am
Note to comanchenation: you are a part of the "extremist fringe". Posted by srjenkins at 12/24/2008 @ 12:19am
Oh, yea. I think just the fringe. Or the fridge, where he keeps voluminous quantities of blitz-weinhardt stubbies and buffalo burgers.
Posted by ficheye at 12/24/2008 @ 01:58am
Considering Cheney's role in the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the no-bid contracts awarded to Haliburton, he should have been impeached.
First off, it is improper for the Vice President to wedge himself into the CIA's operations and pressure analysts to gin up inteligence.
Consider that inteligence will be used to gain support for a war based on a false pretext of WMDs in Iraq.
Fianlly, consider Cheney's relationship to Haliburton and the money they made from the war...
A lot of people died for that money...At least Judas Iscariot felt regret.
Also, Sara Palin is a rube. No chance to win POTUS.
Posted by koroviev at 12/24/2008 @ 02:05am
I love it when these guys talk about Cheney or even the Hon.G.W. Bush PrePosted by comanchenation at 12/24/2008
Honorable G.W Bush....my, my now that is a title he never thought he would get from anyone. Still, those who believe in a fool will act like one also...it must be really sad for you that your man is leaving office under such a fabulous approval rating of what it is now 20/30% if that!! We all know that Bush is not very articulate, so I doubt he would even know the meaning of the word "honorable" let alone actually be it!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/24/2008 @ 08:33am
Yes, there is time, plenty of time, to impeach Bush and Cheney. Impeachment is not limited to the term of office, from what I read. Because impeachment, besides removal, also punishes by disqualifying for further federal office, it may be effectuated after the term has expired.
The problem is we have a Congress and a Democratic Party that does not defend its role under our atrophied, 18th century Constitution. If they were strong enough to do so, they would have impeached the President for his signing statements as usurpations of power (and for many other reasons).
No, Aziz Huq, in his article today, makes good points, but the point to be remembered is that our Congress allows the imperial presidency because it brings federal money to their constituents. So long as Congress ignores its role under our faltering 18th century relic, we shall have imperial presidents, huge "defense" budgets and a declining country.
Posted by goedel at 12/24/2008 @ 09:54am
Lillian,
This is "Sjerk" here, your worst nightmare.
Your attempt at twisting this situation around failed.
The reason I brought up the emile duBois comment to begin with is that goes right to the heart of the problem with leftist behavior.
We are in a "thread" where the main theme is the sanctimonious crucification of Dick Cheney for the high crime and misdemeanor of following policy that does not meet leftist approval.
Now, out of nowhere, not in response to anything anybody was saying, emile lets fly with some of the standard leftist canards about race.
Why? You would have to ask emile. The problem is, you see nothing wrong with it and are defending it.
Emile is promoting that Republicans have issues with Barack Obama because he is black. There is no basis for this or the lib canard that Republicans and Conservatives are borderline or actual racists.
Leftists use the issue of race not to solve the problems caused by segregation, lack of opportunity, discrimination and racism; but instead to promote the cause of liberalism and the election of leftist politicans.
Libs have no problem dividing people and making things worse in order to achieve the desired result - election of libs.
You throw statistics in my face that in no way prove Republican racism. Everybody knows that the majority of African Americans in this country are currently Democrats. You overlook that Democrats take this constituency for granted and some racist white libs look down upon this constituency with condecension.
What you need to do is prove Emile's contention that Republicans are upset with Barack Obama's election because he is black.
Since you can't you need look in the mirror and ask yourself why you seek to spew hatred to advance liberalism.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 10:39am
chaoszen,
You say "The President, the Military or the Congress has no right to invade a soverign nation that may pose a threat at sime time in the future. There has to be an imminent threat of attack. Not some speculation based on lies. "
You are totally incorrect on this.
Responsible people do not let a threat become imminent before dealing with it.
To do so means that the cost (including in human life) is greater than if it was dealt with pro-actively in a timely manner.
It also leads to the possibility that when the threat becomes "imminent" (as would have been the case with Saddam and newly manufactured WMD), the threat is not even noticed and then the threat becomes an actual attack - and the cost in terms of human life is even greater still.
You state a "rule" that is a lib rule. An irresponsible lib requirement. Fortunately President Bush did not follow lib rules. Hopefully Barack Obama, even though lib, will realize that lib rules should not be followed either.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 10:45am
What you need to do is prove Emile's contention that Republicans are upset with Barack Obama's election because he is black.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008
The Republicans are upset because they don't want to see change of ANY kind and that in some cases does involve the fact that PE Obama is black. They are more than happy with the way things were/are with Bush and his cronies and how this country has been taken down the river!!! Still, if you voted for Bush for the past 8 years you all got what you deserved. We more sensible folks out here have a better grasp on what is reality unlike Bush and his followers who live in a dream world.
Posted by Caj at 12/24/2008 @ 10:55am
comanchenation,
You said "You can't buy entertainment like this, but the extremist fringe provides it for free!"
Jay Leno, or even Johnny Carson at his best, could not satirize some of these leftists more than they already do to themselves.
I did not include David Letterman in my comment above because he is not one prone to mock or make fun of libs - From what I have seen, he IS lib, and has behaved as such on his show.
I almost said that some of these libs should win an Academy Award, but then I remembered that they already do win Academy Awards!
Every year lib Hollywood entertainers win the awards and then use their acceptance speeches to promote the latest leftist cause or wail about whatever the latest lib axe to grind is.
They maybe should change the name of the The Nation website to Comedy Central II.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 10:58am
Caj,
You just said "The Republicans are upset because they don't want to see change of ANY kind and that in some cases does involve the fact that PE Obama is black. "
What cases?
Conservatives approve of and are glad Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court.
Clarence Thomas is black.
Conservatives do not adjust their opinion towards him beacuse he is black.
This is because Conservatives do not take into account a person's skin color when assesing that person (unlike Democrats) - they evaluate that person's capability.
You know all this already, I am sure, but you can not bring yourself to believe it.
emile duBois has showcased for you the hypocrisy present on your side of the political fence. Why are you blind to this?
So, where is the proof for what you have contended? While searching for this proof, don't forget to overlook that unfortunately there still are people who do not like the idea of a black president in this country, and that group would include Democrats as well as Republicans - because it certainly has in the past.
If you don't believe me, go to Washington, D.C. and go to the office of Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. and ask him about some of his past behavior.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 11:06am
Libs have no problem dividing people and making things worse in order to achieve the desired result -
Sure, SJ, sure.
You have become totally detached from reality.
Maybe you should ask HAPPY and Commanche why they use the term "Magic" when refering to Obama.
Shall we discuss the whole gay rights thing and the 4 year agenda of getting constitutional amendments, that specifically prohibit one group from having a right, on the ballots in 38 states in order to turn out "the base"?
Maybe you could tell me why my republican relatives call Obama "our first nigger president" and talk about the oil drum BBQ that he will be bringing with him (from his "elitist" home, no less????)
Heres one I heard from a guy with a flag and a Palin/McCAin sticker on his truck:"What hits the ground faster, a feather or Obama? The feather, cuz the rope will stop the nigger."
Don't give us this crap about republicans being higher and mightier than ANYBODY, let alone "leftists". Maybe you ahould work on YOUR little group before trying to correct others? Maybe next time I see you I will list the sexual picadillos of your party, just for kicks. Neil Horsley and his mule sex get's top ratings. Then a list of convicted republicans from the Bush admin, the one Cheney said was going to restore "civility" to the WH and GW said was going to restore "credibility".
Till then, enjoy your posturing while killing American soldiers and Marines with your policies. AQ thanks you profusely, things have not been this good for them in years. I would have preferred that they were on the way out, but I guess you have other plans for them to succeed.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/24/2008 @ 11:45am
Commanche- maybe you could compare contrast Jones vs Koresh for us. Explain why one is bad and the other is just a victim. I view them as both bad, but I know I have a mental illness, so ...enlighten me.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/24/2008 @ 11:48am
BTW
An obviously outdated leftist philosophy
PEACE ON EARTH
GOODWILL TOWARDS MEN
Posted by crabwalk at 12/24/2008 @ 11:49am
To President Elect Barack Obama and the troops in Afghanistan: Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often! Find, fix, Kill!!!!! To Nation Readers: Merry Christmas to you all...........! Posted by Weyld1 at 12/24/2008 @ 11:03am | ignore this person | warn this person
PEACE ON EARTH GOODWILL TOWARDS MEN Posted by crabwalk at 12/24/2008 @ 11:49am | ignore this person | warn this person
the choice is yours.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/24/2008 @ 11:56am
"Every year lib Hollywood entertainers win the awards and then use their acceptance speeches to promote the latest leftist cause or wail about whatever the latest lib axe to grind is.
Whereas the republicans that don't win awards... run for president, or serve in congress before crashing into a tree on skis.
see also: Sarah Palin, celebrity, shiny bauble.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/24/2008 @ 12:07pm
crabwalk,
Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards men is not a leftist philosophy.
It also it not a philosophy the terrorists share. I would think if you were to wish peace and goodwill to a terrorist face to face, the terrorist might laugh before they kill you. And they would respect you less, not more, because you made it too easy for them to kill you.
You have been so busy cataloging and chronicling Republican racists that you have not interacted with the Democrat racists that exist out there. As I said, go talk to Sen. Byrd to get a start.
And then, after you talk to overt Democrat racists, go talk to enlightened white libs, who look down on African Americans with fawning condecension and fake compassion. They view African Americans as incapable of acheiving and making progress in society without they help of they, the benevolent white libs.
Or these racist white libs make excuses for an African American child that does not do well in school, or an African American who runs afoul of the law. These racist white libs do not even see, their hubris and self promotion is so great, that the African American community does not seek to make excuses for a child that does not do well in school or a person that runs afoul of the law.
What African Americans want is opportunity. What they get from racist white libs are excuses.
This is the soft bigotry of low expectations that President Bush has talked about. He is far more knowledgeable than you in these matters.
That is reality, crabwalk.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 12:08pm
Article Six US Constitution: All treaties... shall be the supreme law of the land.
UN Charter Ch.2 Art1: No member state shall use the threat or the use of force aainst the territorial integrity or the political sovereignty of any other nation.
UN Charter ratified by the US Senate and signed by President Truman.
Richard Perle, Nov 19, 2003: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." ""international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone." That law he was referring to was the UN Charter.
Under Article Six, that "international law" was "The Supreme Law of the Land" right here in the USA.
I guess the wing-nuts on here don't really care about the Constitution.
Posted by nuQlerOstrich at 12/24/2008 @ 12:50pm
If any treaty no longer serves our National Interest, then it can be abrogated. Simple.
However, violating our international treaties, is inherently a violation of our Constitution.
A violation of The Supreme Law Of The Land.
There's no way to white-wash it.
But I don't have any faith that Congress will uphold their oath to defent the Constitution. On Day One, Bush violated the Presidential Records Act of 1978 and Congress did nothing. So violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 became just another law thrown under the bius by Bush-Cheney. Evidence has already confirmed that Bush started his NSA spying right after siezing power and that was way before 9-11.
Congress will do nothing.
It's up to the people, any of us who still believe in the Constitution, to put pressure on te new administration to uphold that Constitution. Against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And that means investigations into criminal wrongdoing and then proper prsecution.
Posted by nuQlerOstrich at 12/24/2008 @ 12:58pm
The real reason that the Bush-Cheney invaded Iraq and took out Saddam Hussein can be deduced by the real facts.
In November 2000 Saddam Hussein changed Reserve Currency to the Euro.
Fact.
Hans Blix was allowed his inspection team total access inside Iraq in early 2003.
Fact.
Deduction: Hans Blix and the UN Inspectors would come back to the UN and give Saddam Hussein the "All Clean".
Next, Saddam Hussein would have been able to sell Iraqi Oil on the World Market in Euros. China, Japan, India would no longer have a need to keep large stocks of Reserve US Dollars.
2 things then would happen.
1. The price of OIL would drop. 2. The value of US Dollars would drop to their rightful value. i.e. next to nothing. Fiat Dollars, not redeemable in anything of value. The only thing that keeps the US Dollar from going to nothing is that they are required on the World Oil Market as Reserve Currency. The "Petro-Dollar."
Posted by nuQlerOstrich at 12/24/2008 @ 1:09pm
We have heard all the supposed reasons for invading Iraq. They even admitted that the WMD's excuse was a marketing ploy, "It was something that we all could agee on."
None of it passes the snif test.
Till you look at the real facts. And then see the real results.
Liberals ad wing-nuts can argue over it till the next millenium.
Perle shocked everyone at that speech in November 2003 when he admitted that the war was illegal. But the American Press, "Liberal Media" kept silent on it.
Posted by nuQlerOstrich at 12/24/2008 @ 1:15pm
The Beast CHERMAK continues to bloviate and define reality for 'those on the left'.
Dick Cheney is an evil man. An unhinged, cigar chomping plutocrat with a penchant for torture.
Fellow Nation bloggers - it's time to realize that the beast CHERMAK is most likely locked up in some institution. It's time for his pills, but he's gotta finish his tapioca first.
There is no possibility of a discourse with this guy. As far as he is concerned anyone who has a mouth and speaks out loud is just WRONG. He has a classic "Yeah, but..." syndrome. I can only use humor and sarcasm to deal with someone of that 'ilk'. Let's all wish him well and hope that therapy and drugs will have the desired effect.
Posted by ficheye at 12/24/2008 @ 1:16pm
Lillian,
This is "Sjerk" here, your worst nightmare.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 10:39am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Actually SJerk, you are a dream come true. With your every post, YOu demonstrate how truely pathetic and bankrupt the con view of the world is. You are a cliche...spouting con dogma from a mind that is impervious to fact or reality. You prove with your every post, how deserving you are of your moniker.
.
You throw statistics in my face that in no way prove Republican racism. Everybody knows that the majority of African Americans in this country are currently Democrats.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 10:39am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Actually, those aren't statistics...they are simple statements of fact. If there is an explanation for them, and the fact that the VAST majority of blacks are Democrats, that goes beyond the racism of Republicans, by all means, let's hear it.
If you REALLY want to see the face of your party SJerk, google the videos from the McCain/Palin rally in Strongsville, Ohio. Then try to come back here and pretend that the guy holding the sock monkey with the Obama label around it's neck ISN'T racist.
Posted by Lillian at 12/24/2008 @ 2:44pm
Clarence Thomas is black.
Conservatives do not adjust their opinion towards him beacuse he is black.
This is because Conservatives do not take into account a person's skin color when assesing that person (unlike Democrats) - they evaluate that person's capability.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 11:06am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh my God, that is just precious!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You are actually going to try to contend, right here, in front of everyone, that Clarence Thomas, a man with barely a year of experience on the federal bench, who had never written a legal book, article, or brief of any consequence, was chosen because he was the best qualified to be on the Supreme Court and NOT because Bush felt he needed to find a black man to replace Thurgood Marshall, the only black Supreme Court justice at the time and a man who had served as the Chief Counsel for the NAACP before his appountment?!?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh my God, that is just...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by Lillian at 12/24/2008 @ 3:03pm
Meanwhile, back on topic (sort of) I REALLY enjoyed the PEW poll last week (actually an update from a previous poll) that asked respondents to describe Preznit Bush in a single word.
By far, the majority (56%) picked 'incompetent'. Coming in 3rd at 27% was 'idiot'. 23% chose 'arrogant'.
My favorite was the 16% who chose 'honorable' (what were they thinking?) - presumably it was a different group than the 16% who chose 'stupid'.
Incidentally, only 8% chose 'leader'.
(I'm guessing SJerk was probably represented in that group.)
Posted by Lillian at 12/24/2008 @ 3:16pm
Hello Lillian (Ljerk),
You and some of those on your side of the political fence are the ones who contend that Republicans (and also not Democrats), are racist.
You cite that the high percentage of Democrat affiliation among Blacks proves (somehow) that Republicans are racist.
How do you get from point A to point B with this?
You have constructed no proof or logic at all. You make a statement and then claim the statement is self-proving and obvious.
You would have to back it up with logic and facts, missing in your post amongst all the hysteria.
Your argument would not pass muster in a high school debate club, nor in a geometry class. Even with lib teachers, your argument would have to get a grade of F.
You want me to google a Republican rally where you say I will see racism.
How about you go to the U.S. Capitol, go meet with Sen. Robert Byrd, a Democrat, and ask him to explain his past?
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 3:43pm
You just said "The Republicans are upset because they don't want to see change of ANY kind and that in some cases does involve the fact that PE Obama is black. "
What cases?
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 11:06am
My point here as I stated earlier, it is true that a good deal of Republicans did not want Obama as President...espeically here in the south simply because he is black there are no two ways about it I can assure you. Not all Democrats if they were honest wanted Obama for the same reason...but my point is the south is predominately Republican and that's what I mean, they don't want change of ANY kind as they still see themselves living in the past where a negro should know his place!!! I'm not saying ALL Republicans now, because some have taken a different view since PE Obama was on the campaign trail and they heard and understood him better and saw he was better choice for this country. But there are those "die hards" that will never ever change their mind about a person's skin colour no matter what and those are the ones who have no desire to change and that really is sad.
Posted by Caj at 12/24/2008 @ 4:02pm
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 10:45am
People like you don't understand a Constitutional Democracy. And that is understandable considering you are a Fascist. In a Democracy we do not condone pre-emptive military strikes on sovereign nations. Although that may have a few downsides. We should only attack another country when an imminent threat is indicated.
To do otherwise would be to lose any moral high ground. If we pursue your and your kinds flawed and unamerican foreign policy we are lost as a nation. And no better that Nazi Germany or the current political atmosphere of the current right wing assholes in Israel.
It amazes me that the state of Israel has adopted the same tactics as the oppressor who killed millions of them. Seems most strange and not just a little ironic.
Posted by chaoszen at 12/24/2008 @ 4:11pm
constitutional law takes a holiday this Christmas week! Posted by comanchenation at 12/24/2008 @ 12:02am
Hmmm. In an article (remember, at the top of the page?), about Lord CHENEY and his mangling of said 'constitution', this comment would require a departure from all the known tenets of logic and sanity.
Still a lot of fun though! Go, comanche, go! I think you and SJ should go out and get matching tattoos. Take Larry with you.
Posted by ficheye at 12/24/2008 @ 4:22pm
When a nation hates, so much so that they psychologically adopt the same attitude of those that wronged them, they are lost. It happens all the time. Very sad. That means that nothing was learned. It only perpetuates the same hate that caused the problem in the first place.
It creates a cycle of abuse that never ends. It just goes round and round in an insane sort of violent game of one upsmanship. Crazy. Since we are all supposedly intelligent human beings. We are all brothers and sisters in this journey through life. It does not last long, and then we are dead. So how will "YOU" explain "YOUR" intolerance to your pod brothers and sisters in the afterlife?
Death is not the end. It is only the beginning...
Posted by chaoszen at 12/24/2008 @ 4:30pm
Caj,
You said above "............espeically here in the south simply because he is black......."
and then followed up a bit later with:
"....But there are those "die hards" that will never ever change their mind about a person's skin colour no matter what"
Caj, you say "a person's skin COLOUR"?
When you discuss how you see things "here in the south" - are you talking southern Ontario? Would that be near Toronto or closer to Windsor?
Or are you talking about the southern part of the U.K. Are you from London? Or more around Bristol or Southampton?
Last I knew, Queen Elizabeth did not permit citizens of the U.K. to vote in U.S. Presidential Elections. I guess she would have juristriction over Canada as well.
I do not believe Barack Obama's skin COLOUR was a factor in this year's presidential race.
You are correct when you say there are no two ways you can assure me you are right, about your claim to Republican racism. On your lastest post you not only did not prove your point, you went backwards, eh?
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 5:06pm
chaoszen,
Early on with this I said you need to speak for yourself.
In the same manner as some libs such as TexasFlood recently foam at the mouth and declare that any one supporting the war has no authority to support the war unless they go into the military themselves and go over to Iraq - I would say that you have no right to promote this hard-wired pacifism of yours unless you are willing to lay down like a sheep and die when the terrorists come calling.
OK, sorry, actually you are willing to do that! Sorry.
But you need to speak for yourself. To paraphrase you, you say you can't have pre-emptive war because you lose the moral high ground.
So you think somehow it is more moral to be attacked first, with catastropic death perhaps, and die - rather than prevent it from happening. You die, in your view, but with a great mantle of morality, I guess.
But you have forgotten, this involves more than just you. It involves other people.
Is it moral to not do something until it is too late to stop it or it occurs because you did not pre-emptively stop it, and people die as a result?
Other people, not just you.
If you do not do something to stop events that are likely to occur (but not imminent), and then someone (other than you) dies, that is moral?
How?
It is moral to do nothing to stop people from being killed by evil people?
You seem to think so.
And how does your logic apply to Israel?
In the case of Israel we are not talking even about threats here, distant or imminent. We are talking about actual attacks, constantly the state of Israel has been under siege since 1948.
You discuss intolerance. Your head is up your rear end too far in your pacifist la-la land. You do not see the terrorists are intolerant beyond belief.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 5:19pm
You cite that the high percentage of Democrat affiliation among Blacks proves (somehow) that Republicans are racist.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 3:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Wow, you are so easily confused, aren't you SJerk.
.
Actually, what I said is basically that the **LOW** percentage of **Republican** affiliation among blacks proves that Republicans are racist.
Then I offered that you could provide some alternative explanation for that **LOW** percentage of **Republican** affiliation among blacks, which of course, you couldn't. You didn't even try...just pretended I made a different argument.
See SJerk, you got yourself so twisted up in your hatred and blaming of all 'evil' on 'libs', that you hopelessly confused yourself.
.
And I am not the least bit surprised that you didn't take an honest look at the racist face of your party by Googling that fairly recent racist...er...Republican rally. Can't let mere 'reality' intrude on your BS con fantasies, right SJerk?
BTW, Robert Byrd is a pig. While he at least had the decency to apologize for his past, he's still a pig.
But of course, he's no **more** of a racist pig than Strom Thurmond or his acolyte, Trent Lott, now is he. They are pretty much all racist pigs in a poke.
Posted by Lillian at 12/24/2008 @ 6:28pm
He is far more knowledgeable than you in these matters.
That is reality, crabwalk.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 12:08pm
Too funny.
You should write for Colbert.
Do tell me about Robert Byrd, SJ, Why don't you tell me what he wrote/said in 1950? You can leave out his apologies and recantations of those beliefs, as they do not fit your preconceived notions.
[Byrd said that he regrets filibustering and voting against the Civil Rights Act of and would change it if he had the opportunity
In the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's (NAACP)[43] Congressional Report Card for the 108th Congress (spanning the 2003–2004 congressional session), Byrd was awarded with an approval rating of 100 percent for favoring the NAACP's position in all 33 bills presented to the United States Senate regarding issues of their concern. Only 16 other Senators of the same session matched this approval rating]-WIKI
blather on SJ, blather on.
You are starting to enter PONTIFUCS LAND. You tell me what my beliefs are, you seem to know better than me.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/24/2008 @ 11:06pm
"Don't forget.. because of Saddam's obstruction, we could not determine the actual facts... that in itself is reason enough to have taken Saddam out.. we needed to know the acutal facts and Saddam would not permit it."
On the contrary, we were getting actual facts in 2003. Among those were that every bit of "information" the Bush administration gave to Blix was incorrect.
"What you and they fail to take into consideration is the full weight of international law on this subject and specific to Material Breach. The US and UK were entirely in keeping with international law to resume hostilities with Iraq as a result of even the UN formally acknowledging that Iraq was in Material Breach (not that the US/UK needed it under international law)"
LL again conveniently ignores that the same UNSC resolution that found Iraq to be in material breach also stated that the UNSC "remained seized of the matter". That removed the right for the US/UK to unilaterally proceed on the basis of that breach.
"Libs truly live in a perpetual state of misery."
We aren't the ones who live in fear of terrorists under our bed, or who favor shooting up a country because of mere specualation.
You can spout off as much as you like about what Saddam "would" have done but that's about as useful as your predictions that McCain had the election locked. The point is that any announcement of Hussein's compliance with the UN resolutions (which would've required more than Blix saying that Hussein had no WMDs) could easily have been replaced by trade sanctions that would still have excluded key items. You are simply someone who is so cowardly that you can't go to stores near Ground Zero because of the fear and wants to shoot up countries because of your imagined parade of horribles.
Posted by brunowe at 12/25/2008 @ 2:35pm
brunowe,
I am tired of hearing how you enlightened libs cite we conservatives live in fear, when as I have said your lack of "fear" is based on your naive belief that there are no threats.
It overlooks that Conservatives are not in fear, but that Conservatives are pointing out terrorist threats and saying we should do something about them. That is not fear.
And many of you saying we are in fear are quaking in your boots that the planet will fry in ten years because the great prophet Algore has told you so.
You keep telling me you do not "shoot up a country" because of speculation.
But in some cases you have to, such as was the case in Iraq.
Sanctions in the future would have had no effect on Saddam, they did not before. The degree to which Saddam no longer had WMD was no doubt with his complicity, not because he had suddenly reformed but because he realized he needed to lay low for a while, until the world's attention was no longer on him.
You can not tell me that once Hans Blix said he was free of WMD that a good part of the world and people here at home would have been proclaiming he was disarmed and now we need to concentrate on education, health care, the economy, etc.
Whatever attention would have been paid to Saddam would have been less than before and sufficiently low to enable him to restart WMD manufacuture again.
THIS IS ALL A MOOT POINT. This is because we did the right thing, the chances that there would have been catastrophe due to Saddams actions was too great to take a chance that it wouldn't have happened.
You do not like the fact that Saddam was stopped. It doesn't matter, because Saddam was stopped.
We do not have to discuss why Saddam was not stopped in time, after the catastrophe, no thanks to those like you.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/26/2008 @ 12:09pm
We do not have to discuss why Saddam was not stopped in time, after the catastrophe, no thanks to those like you. Posted by sjchermak at 12/26/2008 @ 12:09pm
Ahhh... the bloviator in chief, CHERMAK, gifting us like one of the three wise men with his deep and insightful knowledge of society and humanity in general.
What would this website be without him? And if he was 'so tired of hearing' what 'those on the left' had to say, wouldn't he go away? No. Fat chance of that. The beast, CHERMAK, he lives to ridicule others and make them pay for his own personal sadness. Time to change the bedding, CHERMAK.
Posted by ficheye at 12/26/2008 @ 3:34pm
"when as I have said your lack of "fear" is based on your naive belief that there are no threats. "
I never said that there are no threats, but I've long given up on you living in the reality-based universe.
"But in some cases you have to, such as was the case in Iraq. "
No, you don't have too. The basic ethics of war-making require that you have something more solid than speculation. Your assumption that the sanctions would've had no effect is just that, and about as valuable as your assumption, at the time of the Palin selection, that McCain had the election won.
"And many of you saying we are in fear are quaking in your boots that the planet will fry in ten years because the great prophet Algore has told you so. "
Actually it's because the overwhelming majority of scientists who have studies this indicate nasty long-term effects. Never said anything about "frying".
"Whatever attention would have been paid to Saddam would have been less than before and sufficiently low to enable him to restart WMD manufacuture again. "
Again, that is simply a fear-based assumption on your part. And the sanctions, no-fly zones and missile strikes did shut down his WMD ambitions.
"You do not like the fact that Saddam was stopped. It doesn't matter, because Saddam was stopped.
We do not have to discuss why Saddam was not stopped in time, after the catastrophe, no thanks to those like you."
No, we just have to discuss why hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed and million have fled as refugees. Your "morality" is clear. As long as you don't have to quake in your boots, the lives of hundreds of thousands of other people mean nothing to you. We certainly do have to ask about that catastrophe, thanks to those like you.
Posted by brunowe at 12/26/2008 @ 6:16pm
brunowe,
As far as global warming, there is a significant quantity of scientists who now question the premise of global warming, or what causes it. The left says these scientists are junk scientists or in bed with Exxon or whatever. This is not true. There is no public scientific debate happening, and those on the left do not want to engage in one. They just declare the matter settled. If you believe in global warming as a threat, you need to understand you have no basis for doing so. The scientific debate has not happened.
"Frying" is just a sarcastic way of describing what Algore says. You know already I was being sarcastic.
And I would hope you are aware of the judge in the UK that ruled that schools showing Algore's movie are REQUIRED to tell the students about the 9 things wrong in Algore's movie.
I have said already Saddam's WMD ambitions were "shut down" only because he at some point realized going into abayance was the only real way to get off of the hook and get back into the game again someday. The world had not successfully "disarmed" Saddam, instead he was playing games with us.
There would have been no real sanctions or pressure or monitoring on Saddam once left off of the hook. The UN would not enforce it's resolutions before the war, I can't imagine what makes you think anybody in the UN would have concerned themselves with Saddam once he was declared free of WMD. He would have been free to make them again.
You cite all the misery in Iraq after the war - but that is nothing compared to the catastrophe that could have happened had Saddam not been stopped.
This is based on solid logic, not speculation. Lvliberty1 in blogs in the last couple of weeks laid all this out, you apparently just ignore it.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/26/2008 @ 7:32pm
brunowe and you other libs,
You libs are stubborn. You do not give up.
I came across an excellent article a couple of days ago. The basic gist of the article is maybe the best thing to do is find a way to let libs have their liberal utopia, and have them suffer the consequences of it, but in a way that does not harm anyone else.
It does not deal with the question of terrorism or international affairs, but rather domestic liberalism and the desire of the left to have socialist utopia here at home.
The author suggest taking a state like Vermont and let libs set up shop completely there and turn it as socialistic as they want, but bound by the nasty effects that would bring - while enabling others (non libs) to live in places not restricted by socialism.
The author theorizes that maybe some libs would learn, and some might not, but at least others would not be harmed by socialism.
The premise is that libs seem to have no other way of understanding that what they promote is wrong, so let them live it and suffer from it, maybe that would work.
One certainly sees the stubborness of libs on this website, so intoxicated by their beliefs that they can not see reality and common sense staring them in the face - they remain wedded to the lib ideology and incapable of changing. Libs think change means more leftist belief, not less.
==================
Political Hay Utopia By Peter Ferrara on 12.24.08 @ 6:08AM http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/24/utopia
Posted by sjchermak at 12/26/2008 @ 7:42pm
ficheye,
I enjoy a post such as yours. Thanks.
Since it is a bunch of nonsense, it communicates loud and clear that you have no more gas in your tank, so to speak.
You have no cogent argument and you react accordingly. You have lost the debate, and you know it.
This is how Margaret Thatcher reacted, when asked once if she got offended if some of her opponents got nasty. She said no, that was a signal that they had no further meaningful arguments to offer to defend their positions, and that they had lost the debate and she had won, and they knew it.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/26/2008 @ 7:47pm
Posted by sjchermak at 12/26/2008 @ 7:47pm
No, CHERMAK. It is specifically because you seem to have an answer to everything no matter what it is that I cannot waste energy engaging you. Others attempt it, but they are always wrong as far as you are concerned..
I've never noticed that anyone said anything that would change your opinion of what they had to say - unless they agreed with you. And that would be a rarity.
Since it's no use debating with you, I take the wiser course. I find humor in what you say. Your opinions are so skewed that it makes me laugh. Other people get upset with you, but that is your aim. To define that as 'you have won', and therefore 'we have lost' is ludicrous at best. And that's being kind.
And , as I said in response to one of your latest rants, if you are so tired of us 'Libs', whatever that means, why don't you stop blogging here? The reason is that you seem to enjoy a false sense of superiority from saying crazy things and proving us wrong on dubious stances that you take. So I respond with crazy things in kind. Have fun! No one here takes you seriously, I hope, but you seem to have an endless well of lunatic fringe ranting points. Happy New Year!
Posted by ficheye at 12/26/2008 @ 8:04pm
ficheye,
You say (referring to me) "Other people get upset with you"
Conservative bloggers here on The Nation don't get upset with me!
You lay down a whole line of thought that you think describes me..... look again... you are describing yourself, and crabwalk, and Lillian, and brunowe, and many other libs.
I have at times since I have been blogging here put down arguments for my opinions and counter arguments for those I see libs promote --- and they are always rejected, plus there is at times simple nonsense that takes place..... such as instead of a counter point back from a lib at me they will claim I am just repeating Rush Limbaugh or other conservatives...or whoever I am arguing with will want links out the kazoo as "proof" .... as though you can not argue logic back and forth with someone anymore (what did people do before the Internet?) ... but then if I provide links the source is "declared" invalid, thus the article is declared "no good" - rather than leading to a discussion of what is in the article.
Your second paragraph implies that at some point I should have been persuaded by leftist arguments. My question back is - how many times have any of you libs been persuaded by Conservative arguments, from me or others?
You need to scroll back through many of these blogs over the past year and take a good look at how people act here, but open your mind a bit before you do, and maybe you might see things differently.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/26/2008 @ 8:23pm
Well, sjchermak, we don't have to envision what it would be like if your ilk ran things...we have the last eight years.
An unnecessary war, neglect of the necessary one, incompetent mishandling of a natural disaster, incompetent mishandling of financial regulation, etc...
Posted by brunowe at 12/26/2008 @ 10:20pm
CHERMAK,
You seems to be running out of steam. Usually your posts are more caustic. Maybe it's late where you are.
Here's something to try; shorter posts. Then maybe, just maybe one of 'us' could engage with you on a common level. But you go off topic so soon that the subject at the top of the page, Dick Cheney in this instance, gets lost in the dust. That's one of the reasons we don't 'exchange' ideas with you. Nobody knows just what it is that you're talking about. Your pleasure is in calling people weak and lame. This will gain you nothing but ridicule. Especially from me.
This thread will end soon - it's gone on for a fairly long time. But there are other blogs. Try some shorter posts. Try not addressing everyone who disagrees with you as 'those on the left'. By that I mean don't make crass generalizations. Just state your opinion, and then postulate a question, possibly. That kind of behavior will generate an interaction of substance. I, for one, and many others doubt that you can do this. You are angry and demeaning of 'those on the left', even though we just had 8 years of a republican administration. Most of the world, as well as 80% of all americans, view it as a failed one.
Be clear, stay on topic, keep it short, don't rant, and don't ever direct people to rightwingnews.com. It's an embarrassingly small minded site where they happily want to 'beat liberalism to death with a shovel'. Not a very fair minded point of view. Exclusionary and fascistic at best. And remember your comment about how you are so tired of 'us libs'. I, personally, have not given a point of view that would identify me as of that ilk. Not liking Cheney is a universal opinion shared by both Democrats and Republicans. And many cons don't like the war in Iraq either.
Posted by ficheye at 12/27/2008 @ 03:14am
ficheye,
If you would scroll upward you would see that this is the posting that drove this thread off of the topic of Dick Cheney:
=====================
hey, repugs, remember you lost to a black guy. hahahahaha
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 7:01pm
====================
As far as all your advice, take it and stuff it.
You come across as an elitist, giving me instruction on how to post comments. My postings have varied in length and content - no different than those from others on this site both left and right.
I, according to you, should not identify ("crass generalize") people as "on the left".
A debate is going on, and every opinion from a given person is typical of those the left believes, you say that person is not supposed to be "labeled" as a liberal or leftist?
This is another one that pops up periodically - the "you are not supposed to label people" command.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/27/2008 @ 06:47am
CHERMAK,
You ARE out of steam, but still have plenty of gas. I was giving you an opportunity, but you choose to return to the valley of anger and 'pseudo-debate'. The only thing I'll stuff is the turkey, which, in your case, is perfectly appropriate. I'm so sorry that I upset you.
So, I'll have to put the MORON ALERT siren back on the top of my computer and address you from afar as you continue to outgas and bloviate into the blogosphere.
Emile just gave up, as others have, realizing that you are not open minded in any way, to put it mildly. You don't postulate, you pontificate. So he said something which annoyed you. Apparently, that's not hard.
Behold, the beast CHERMAK! And be afraid. Not.
ps I'm still waiting for the other 'conservative' bloggers to come to your aid with a show of solidarity. Who knows, maybe even the disgraced Darth Cheney will personally come to your aid. If you shower, that is.
Posted by ficheye at 12/27/2008 @ 1:14pm
ficheye,
Amazing. You gave me an opportunity?
I mentioned above you are pompous, but you seem to have no idea how you are coming across.
You lecture me like I am in grade school and need to learn how to read and write and talk.
You and others who you refer to as 'us' - of course - only bring up intelligent, concise thought and fully support all you say, from day one, and your discourse only deteriorates when you are confronted with those (not 'us') who frustrate you when the 'not us' do not try to debate intelligently, as you see it and by your standards (which seem to be either agreeing with you or changing one's mind over to your beliefs after discourse with you).
You mention that Emile gave up, and how I am not open minded. Emile, I suppose, has a mind that is wide open!
You say that you are waiting for other conservative bloggers to "come to my aid". Why? So you, the enlightened can respond in the same manner to them as to me?
You said above: "Dick Cheney is an evil man. An unhinged, cigar chomping plutocrat with a penchant for torture. "
This is opinion on your part, opinion which can not be substantiated, it certainly can be classified as bloviating.
A person (you) who engages in this kind of discourse is now lecturing me how to conduct myself?
How about you make an attempt to fully substantiate what you claim in that paragraph. Don't forget, just quoting other leftist opinions (whoops I forgot you say you are not lib) does not count as substantiation, nor just restating your opinion, nor do statements by you on how stupid I am because your opinions are not obvious truth to me.
Just make an attempt to back up what you say with actual facts supported by some element of logic.
Why not give that a try, before engaging in lecturing me?
Posted by sjchermak at 12/27/2008 @ 3:05pm
CHERMAK,
Cheney acknowledged on national television that he had violated his oath to defend a Constitution that bars cruel and unusual punishment by promoting the use of waterboarding. When asked about the use of torture, Cheney told ABC News, "I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency, in effect, came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it."
REFER TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE HERE.
As to the cigar chomping, that's pretty well documented. No bloviating here. You're such a piece of work. Time to check the blood pressure.
Posted by ficheye at 12/27/2008 @ 3:30pm
ficheye,
You also forget the administration takes an oath to protect and defend the United States. You seem to have forgotten that the little darlings at Guantanamo want to kill us and they likely know who plans to kill us and how.
People on the left, and some other non-aligned people such as you, think they should have complete due process and legal rights that only American citizens have, and they should be allowed hearings (that they would turn into circuses and that would cause disclosure of sensitive information whose disclosure would harm our country ), and then if not found guilty of something let go so they can re-join the fight to kill us.
You claimed Dick Cheney is evil. How is he evil?
You claimed Dick Cheney is unhinged. How is he unhinged?
You are allowing your opinion to seep into your responses. Try actual substantiation with actual facts to back up all you said, rather than regurgitate what you found on a leftist (in this case, this) web site.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/27/2008 @ 5:03pm
It is ridiculous to call the Vice President a "torture fan" or to evaluate him on the basis of polls formed by 8 years of demonization.
Yes, he was the White House strategist who crafted America's resopnse to 9/11 and for that performance I think, history will laud Dick Cheney.
We were attacked by islamists who see the western wave succeeding from Russia, China, India, to Africa, South America. etc. Everywhere western technology, politics, economics, entertainment, architecture, fashions in clothes and of right behavior are becoming the norm.
Islamists now see this wave curling around traditional Muslim societies. They fear for Islam in a setting where all religions are equal, where free speech is protected, and where a skeptical habit of mind examines all texts and taboos critically.
That is why those 19 hijackers sought to shatter the facade of the West's champion. The Islamists have resolved that the best defense is to counter attack.
How best to respond? The Left said, subdue Afghanistan and catch bin Laden.
Cheney said no, our enemy is far larger. It includes all those who believe America can be outflanked, endlessly monkeyed with, pricked bloody, while the UN won't permit a clawed reply. Their champion is Saddam, and we must begin by breaking his neck.
Then Cheney proposed turning Iraq into what Islamists fear the most, an Arab country that hews to western standards of democracy, human rights, etc., and that pushes the western wave deep into the Muslim heartland. That is attacking and wounding Islamists at their core.
How this plays out, in decades to come, will define Cheney's contribution, not the malice of today's lefty spin docters, or the growls of a pavloved public.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/27/2008 @ 5:32pm
You claimed Dick Cheney is evil. How is he evil?
You claimed Dick Cheney is unhinged. How is he unhinged Posted by sjchermak at 12/27/2008 @ 5:03pm
If you don't think someone is evil who blatantly lets troops fight and die in a war that was based on a lie and then his arrogant attitude toward anyone who has the nerve to question him about it is not unhinged well,I don't know what to say!!!! The man is evil personified and he should be dealt with in a court of law....he'll get away with it here of course but I do hope at some point he will be brought to trial in the Hague, now that would be justice for that rotten excuse for a man.
Posted by Caj at 12/27/2008 @ 5:35pm
CHERMAK/PIROVANO 2012
All the answers, all the time.
As I mentioned before, there's no hope of having a discourse with people who seem to haunt this website giving the perceived 'left' a hard time. We're wrong, you're RIGHT.
So I bait you, CHERMAK. And you fall for it every time. Utterly predictable. I call Cheney evil. That sets you off on an incredible tirade, as usual. Talk about Pavlovian.
I'm starting to read 'ANGLER'. I already know what you think about it, although you probably haven't read it. Also, there's a great article on rightweb.com about DICK. You may enjoy it. It's pretty fair minded, considering.
Posted by ficheye at 12/27/2008 @ 5:54pm
I wonder if Gov. Palin is to become someday the first U.S. President to be successfully phone-pranked by a Canadian deejay.
:))
Posted by schnellerheinz at 12/27/2008 @ 6:10pm
BTW, Dick's nothing more than an artful draft dodger.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 12/27/2008 @ 6:12pm
To be more descriptive, he's more aptly described as the Ty Cobb of the draft dodging world.
Now, to paraphrase the Babe, who said of Ty..."That guy is a prick."
:)
Posted by schnellerheinz at 12/27/2008 @ 6:16pm
ficheye,
You claim you want discourse.
You claimed Dick Cheney is evil.
You were asked to attempt to support your premise.
You have not done so, have not even tried.
How is discourse possible, when you refuse to answer questions and try to support your claims?
How is the lack of discourse the fault of anybody other than you?
Posted by sjchermak at 12/27/2008 @ 6:29pm
Caj,
What is the purpose of your post, at 5:35 pm?
Hugo_Pirovano's post, in at 5:32 pm, refutes the contentions of many on this thread, including yours, about Dick Cheney.
So why are you posting in with your comments that don't hold up - since all one visiting this site has to do is scroll back upward one post to see your opinions taken apart?
I guess you could be described as a person that listens but doesn't hear, or looks but doesn't see.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/27/2008 @ 6:37pm
ficheye at 1 5:54pm says:
<<< All the answers, all the time. As I mentioned before, there's no hope of having a discourse with people who seem to haunt this website giving the perceived 'left' a hard time. We're wrong, you're RIGHT.>>>
Your objection is ludicrous. The Nation magazine famously has strong and controversial opinions. It is written by and for argumentative people. It presumable offers these talk boards so that its opinion can be tested: attacked and defended.
If someone like sjchermak or liberty, or I, dispute a Nation opinion, should we not explain our disagreement as clearly and sharply as possible?
You have the right to refute or even ridicule views and dissent you deem false, but to object to posts and posters, because they don't join the consensus is plain idiotic.
Your problem is, you can't come up with arguments of your own, so you fall back on spitting and niggling.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/27/2008 @ 8:37pm
Oh! I am wounded!
(Dick Cheney had five deferments to escape service)
I spit! I niggle! (That's good, HP!)
(Dick gave Scooter the title of 'assistant to the president, so that he could intercept emails and correspondence going to the oval office, thus helping 'form' Bushes opinions on worldly matters).
You guys always set up a whale of an argument. Impressive, and fairly well phrased posts, but backed up by the usual RW talking points on how to give a lib a schoolin'!
Warrantless wiretapping? Only when it became clear that more than 20 administration officials were within hours of quitting, including the top five layers of the Justice Department, did Dubya reverse course and overrule Cheney. This rare defeat may have helped turn Bush against DICK. And who'da thunk it? Decider time!
Cheney lies to Dick Armey (pissing him off mightily) about intelligence leading to the iraq war, convincing him that Iraq could miniaturize nukes! What a whopper!
He recently declares frustration that the WMD's have not been found, but, like many cons, he insists that they must be out there somewhere. Maybe the Iraqi's even moved 'em! ( Uhhh... yeah! The Syrians have 'em! Yo, Assad! Whussup dude!)
Policy on detainees? DICK didn't think it necessary to run that by Colin and Condi. Pissing THEM off. Almost seems racist, but... there I go again.
Conclusion: DICK was no dummy. No problem there. But divisive and manipulative? You bet. Redefined torture to fit his needs? Oh, yes! Rude, exclusionary, secretive? (routinely had the secret service trash the lists of visitors to his office) Had a hand in some pretty dark machinations regarding energy policy which were kept very hush hush? Definitely, and can you say rolling blackouts, brownouts,(sigh). Not enough room. DICK......!
Posted by ficheye at 12/28/2008 @ 04:02am
ficheye @ 04:02am writes:
<< Dick Cheney had five deferments to escape service>>
I say history will judge Cheney by the strategy he constructed for the US following 9/11.
You think his going to college on graduating high school instead of to Vietnam will be held against him.
You think he will be faulted for having sought to protect US interests against WMD which all our intelligence services including those of Europe and Russia told him, existed.
You think his support of extraordinary security efforts, wiretaps, detaining suspects, etc., which prevented further attacks on the US, and which everyone believed imminent and inevitable, will be held against him.
You are a sly one you are, and as thick as a bull's walt.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/28/2008 @ 1:41pm
Hugo, Hugo...
How suddenly we slide from self righteous indignation and into the 'history will judge him' mythos.
George Bush was a puppet president. He hardly read a newspaper. "Bin Laden? I don't know where he is. I just don't spend that much time on it"
But I slide into the 'off topic' mode! Cheney, being the master of manipulation he is, reveled in this dark land. much to the chagrine and consternation of those both in and outside of the 'administration'.
The 'stand down' order on 911, regardless of your stance on the conspiracy issue, was a telling and unfathomable action. His agenda for control far outside of the normal channels of his station, should be, and are viewed by many as an outreach program that americans can do without. I think that I prefer the president himself to make decisions such as those. It reflects the spirit of why I voted and who I voted for. As obvious as Atta's passport.
When the system of law is upended in that way it truly redefines our democracy as a regime. But some...(?) are happy with this turn of events because the rule of law matters not... just getting your way is more important than the constitution, that "goddam piece of paper" as George so quaintly puts it. The whole issue of whether or not Cheney belongs to the executive or judicial branch... he belonged, or didn't belong whenever it suited him.
I'm not very liberal when it comes to these things, especially when it concerns people like yourself who attempt a logical obfuscation of any and all topics to achieve a dubious goal which mainly is concerned with being right.
If I cared to research your agenda, I could take you and Liv and CHERMAK completely apart. But what fun is that? Humor is the sharpest sword... as evidenced by your responses.
Posted by ficheye at 12/28/2008 @ 2:49pm
Hey ficheye,
You say "George Bush was a puppet president"
You also say "I think that I prefer the president himself to make decisions"
Thus you imply, and are certainly are not the only one to do so, that George W. Bush is not in charge.
President Bush IS in charge.
Read the following book:
A Matter of Character - Inside the White House of George W. Bush by Ronald Kessler ISBN 1-59523-000-9
This book is based from interviews with people who are familiar with what actually goes on in the White House.
The reality on the question of who is in charge, and other topics about Mr. Bush, is the exact opposite of what has been promoted in the public domain.
And this is not the only book or source where I have seen reference to this.
I saw comments once in a book by an Iraq war correspondent for NBC News, writing about the time he got to meet President Bush and discuss Iraq, with his reflection afterward that President Bush was the person in charge despite the perception otherwise.
So your angst about Dick Cheney, thinking he is running things, is misplaced.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/28/2008 @ 5:12pm
ficheye @ 2:49pm wrote:
<< How suddenly we slide from self righteous indignation and into the 'history will judge him' mythos.>>
We slide?
In your 12/27 @ 5:54pm post you justified baiting Chermak because "there's no hope of having a discourse with people who seem to haunt this website giving the perceived 'left' a hard time. We're wrong, you're RIGHT."
You served that platter of inanity with whine and a side order of righteous indignation. Now produce words of mine wafting "self-righteousness."
Moreover, I am not sliding into, "the 'history will judge him' mythos" since this thread, from Nichols' opening sentence, is about how Americans think Dick Cheney ranks in history.
Incidentally, you don't understand and misapply the word, mythos.
If there is any sliding here, it is your digression to bin Laden and how George Bush doesn't read newspapers, etc. Indeed, you are a specialist in diversions and non sequiturs.
Finally, you say:
<< If I cared to research your agenda, I could take you and Liv and CHERMAK completely apart. >>
I can see that I have met my match, and I for one am not going to tangle anymore with a tough cookie like you.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/28/2008 @ 7:54pm
Caj,
What is the purpose of your post, at 5:35 pm?
Hugo_Pirovano's post, in at 5:32 pm, refutes the contentions of many on this thread, including yours, about Dick Cheney. Posted by sjchermak at 12/27/2008 @ 6:37pm
Well,it appears you and Hugo are both on the same page when it comes to Cheney,so there is not really any point in leaving any comment that does not agree with both of yours!!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/28/2008 @ 9:01pm