Mr. Cheney, What About This 'Executive Assassination Squad'?

posted by John Nichols on 03/23/2009 @ 1:28pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (133)

Subscribe Now

Dick Cheney is not going to fade away.

George Bush may have retreated to Texas to clear brush and ponder how things went so horribly wrong. But Cheney, who failed out of the university from which Bush graduated, has never been so reflective as the former president.

Bush may actually be embarrassed, or scared, about the mess that was made of international affairs, the economy and our system of constitutional governance during his eight years in the White House.

Cheney isn't.

There will be no apologies from the former vice president.

And there will be no withdrawal from the political frontlines by the man who spun out of the Nixon White House to become Gerald Ford's chief of staff, parlayed that role into a seat in Congress where he served as Ronald Reagan's House floor leader, exploited personal and political ties to position himself as George H.W. Bush's secretary of defense and then effectively nominated himself to be George W. Bush's vice president.

Cheney, whose ambition has always exceeded his knowledge and skill, is determined to defend the political misdeeds, policy machinations and power grabs that -- thanks to George W. Bush's ignorance about the most basic workings of the White House -- briefly made him the most powerful man in the world.

That was evident last week, when Scooter Libby's unindicted co-conspirator appeared on CNN.

Asked by John King if he thought President Obama "has made Americans less safe," Cheney responded with the solemn concern of a man who dodged the draft five times: "I do."

Griping that Obama had backed off the most brutal excesses of the previous administration's torturous tenure, Cheney defended detention and interrogation techniques that have been broadly condemned by the international community and civil libertarians of the left and right at home. Despite extensive evidence to the contrary, the ex-veep described waterboarding and worse as "absolutely essential" to keeping Americans safe, declared rough interrogation "a great success story" and defended as legal and "in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles" actions that top lawyers and constitutional scholars describe as high crimes and misdemeanors.

For good measure, the former vice president who made it the primary purpose of his first two years in office to get the United States bogged down in a war in Iraq, put a "mission accomplished" sticker on the Iraq file.

"We have succeeded in creating in the heart of the Middle East a democratically governed Iraq, and that is a big deal, and it is, in fact, what we set out to do," said Cheney.

There is not much point to correcting Cheney. He won't hear it, any more than he did when more responsible members of the former administration challenged his most abusive actions. (The former vice president still is not speaking with Colin Powell, a mild dissenter who served as the Bush administration's first secretary of state.)

Should we mind that Cheney intends to stay in the fray?

Not at all.

Cheney should be welcomed to the microphones.

Indeed, his determination to remain in the limelight should make it easier to invite him to explain a few things – under oath.

Where to begin?

How about with investigative reporter Seymour Hersh's allegation that the Bush-Cheney White House operated an "executive assassination ring" that reported directly to Cheney's office?

Speaking March 10 at the University of Minnesota, the Pulitzer Prize winner writer for The New Yorker explained that: "Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving… It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. . . Congress has no oversight of it."

An elite assassination squad run out of the vice president's office?

That certainly sounds like an interesting point at which to begin an official inquiry.

And since the vice president is so willing to talk about his time in office--as evidenced by his recent media appearances--why not invite him up to Capitol Hill to engage in it?

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich has a suggestion that might get the ball rolling.

Kucinich has asked New York Congressman Edolphus Towns, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to begin an immediate investigation into Hersh's allegations.

Here's Kucinich's letter to Towns:

As you may already be aware, recent media reports indicate that investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, while answering questions before a public audience at the University of Minnesota divulged information about what he calls an "executive assassination ring" operating under the George W. Bush Administration.

If substantiated, the allegation would have far reaching implications for the United States. Such an assertion from someone of Hersh's credibility that has a long and proven track record of dependability on these issues merits attention. Mr. Hersh is within a year or more of releasing a book that is said to include evidence of this allegation. However, we cannot wait a year or more to establish the truth. As such, I request that the Full Committee immediately begin an investigation to determine the facts in this matter.

Mr. Hersh made the allegation before an audience at the University of Minnesota on Tuesday, March 10, 2009. He stated, "Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving."

Mr. Hersh continued, "It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently," he explained. "They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office... Congress has no oversight of it."

If true, these operations violate longstanding U.S. policy regarding covert actions and illegally bypass Congressional oversight. Current statute governing covert action (50 U.S.C. 413b) requires a presidential finding and notification to the appropriate congressional committees. Additionally, Executive Order 12333 clearly states that "no person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in or conspire to engage in assassination."

I urge the Committee to explore Mr. Hersh's allegation.

Kucinich is right.

The charges against Cheney demand an inquiry.

It ought not be delayed.

And it should be presumed that Dick Cheney, who is so very willing to discuss his tenure in the White House, will testify.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols is the author of The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press).

Comments (133)

NICHOLS: "We have succeeded in creating in the heart of the Middle East a democratically governed Iraq, and that is a big deal, and it is, in fact, what we set out to do," said Cheney.

There is not much point to correcting Cheney.

Really, John? What's there to correct? Unless......The Surge failed in your mind....stuck as it is, along w/Reid. Come, in the Age of Magic....somebody needs to plant a kiss to wake you up....LOL!

Oh, as for "Answers"......they are blowing in the wind...

Posted by Happy at 03/23/2009 @ 10:37am
Anyone attacking the foolishness of the present administration is to be destroyed! This is the prime directive! To bad leftists don't have a clue as to just how bad they are making the future of Ameicica and creating a political dark hole from which no light will escape.

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/23/2009 @ 10:59am
"Kucinich is right.

The charges against Cheney demand an inquiry.

It ought not be delayed."

This sounds oddly familiar for Mr Nichols?....heheh

(And with likely the same results as all the other articles like this. BTW, maybe the Dems shouldn't make Limbaugh the face of the Republican Party....make Cheney the face! Consider...if he was 20 years younger and healthier, he'd have been the nominee in 2008 and likely have made Obama-McCain seem like a squeaker!)

Posted by Mask at 03/23/2009 @ 11:02am
"The Surge failed in your mind....stuck as it is, along w/Reid."

ah yes, the Glorious Surge led by the Great General Petraeus! how could i have forgotten!

"To bad leftists don't have a clue as to just how bad they are making the future of Ameicica and creating a political dark hole from which no light will escape."

i'm certain this person must include the bush administration, and cheney specifically, in this charge of creating a political dark hole. that is, if he is not cowardly enough to admit it....

Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2009 @ 11:07am
Death squads? America?

Nah, that's KGB & Mossad stuff.

We don't do that, do we?

Do we?

Damn right, investigations are overdue.

But don't hold your breath.

Who, in Congress, would like to meet an accidental death soon? Say, in a chartered plane that crashes?

Posted by sloper at 03/23/2009 @ 11:15am
I must have a terrible memory. I thought we invaded Iraq cause they had weapons of mass destruction. So it was to make them a democratic country? How long will that last?

Jail Cheney,Bush

Posted by boomergirl at 03/23/2009 @ 11:33am
Unfotuantely, although I agree that Cheney is a man of little knowledge, if there is one thing he is skilled at, it's covering his own tail (men of little knowledge become good at covering their own tails out of neccessity). I can't imagine an inquiry would find much...maybe some missing documents...but should go forth nontheless because you never know.

Posted by danconstan at 03/23/2009 @ 11:36am
Here's your correction Happy...

We haven't created a democratically governed Iraq, until we can remove our troops. If the democratic government of Iraq can actually govern the country without foreign troops, then the country isn't truly democratically governed.

Posted by Guiles at 03/23/2009 @ 11:46am
(And with likely the same results as all the other articles like this. BTW, maybe the Dems shouldn't make Limbaugh the face of the Republican Party....make Cheney the face! Consider...if he was 20 years younger and healthier, he'd have been the nominee in 2008 and likely have made Obama-McCain seem like a squeaker!)

Posted by Mask at 03/23/2009 @ 11:02am

Mask, you must be high on some mix of meth and crack to think that Dick Cheney, at any age, would have made the race against Obama close. The man makes Bob Dole look charismatic!

The rest of your piece is typical Mask: "It would be hard to accomplish politically, so why bother even talking about it?" Hopefully John Conyers and Co. will buck Obama, Pelosi, the Beltway pundits and you and start hearings soon on the various crimes of the Bush Administration.

Posted by cka2nd at 03/23/2009 @ 11:52am
Posted by cka2nd at 03/23/2009 @ 11:52am

1st. Re-read what I wrote---"... made Obama-McCain seem like a squeaker!"

Means it would have been EVEN LESS close, likely Obama stomping a "younger Dick" by 20 million votes and 45 states.

2nd- No. Just realistic, given Mr Nichols spent almost the entire 2nd term of Bush dreaming of impeachment...and that never happened or even came close.

Posted by Mask at 03/23/2009 @ 12:40pm
The more Cheney is trotted out, or trots himself out, or even has the trots, the better. Can't get enough of this old boy in the neocon limelight for me.

A serial draft-dodger without hint of shame, a poster boy without unnecessary artistry. I'll say one thing for the aptly-named "Dick"--he cares little about what others think.

Man has a thick hide.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/23/2009 @ 12:45pm
Really, John? What's there to correct? Unless......The Surge failed in your mind....stuck as it is, along w/Reid. Come, in the Age of Magic....somebody needs to plant a kiss to wake you up....LOL!

Oh, as for "Answers"......they are blowing in the wind...

Posted by Happy at 03/23/2009 @ 10:37am

Maybe we should correct the fact that you haven't even given Iraq enough time to find out if it will stay. Troops haven't even left yet and you guys are cheering about how this will be a paragon of Democracy in the Middle East. You don't know until all the chips have fallen. All the chips aren't even close to having fallen. We could leave and terrorists cells can move back in. You Bush guys have a certain nack for hanging 'Mission Accomplished' banners long before it is proven whether the mission is accomplished or not. Stability isn't determined until the troops are gone and a couple of democratic election cycles later.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/23/2009 @ 12:51pm
Proxy-president Dick 'Duck!' Cheney sat under the glare of the studio lights, grinding his teeth, his face an unpleasant magenta, He faced the TV interviewer with his trademark lopsided grin, waiting for the next question.

"So, uh, Mr. Cheney, you say that no one was shot over in those countries, that they effectively shot themselves, and that 'elements of nature heretofore never disclosed until now' were at work there. The Lords business, you are alleging. Did I get that right?"

"May the Lord bless you and keep you, Larry, and may he help you keep your head down at all the right moments", 'Duck' said in a mysterious tone. "Lefty is going to get you, and these new elements of subversion cannot evade the forces from the 'Dark Side', if you will, forces from the dark side of the Lord. Because he's not alway happy you know. The Lord has a dark side, And he shoots people that he views as a danger to our great society. So ask your questions carefully, and say a few Hail Marys, because you just never know. Ever watch 'The Godfather'?" said Cheney, caressing his ring. A bullet suddenly whizzed through the studio, exploding a couple of overhead lights on it's way through. Larry King hit the floor.

"I think it's time for a commercial break!", shouted Cheney, as he loomed over his interviewer. He stood and looked directly into the camera, into the eyes of the 'American' people.

"You are all scum until the moment that we say you are NOT scum. You are nothing until otherwise notified! Go shopping, shut up, keep your head down and pass the goddam salt! You have been owned, people! Just get used to it! Enjoy 'freedom' because freedom is for breakfast in America! But just wait until you see what's for lunch!" His face loomed into the camera as he switched it off...

Posted by ficheye at 03/23/2009 @ 12:51pm
When are we going to stop with this manifest destiny BS?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/23/2009 @ 12:53pm
Troops haven't even left yet and you guys are cheering...

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/23/2009 @ 12:51pm

Quiz of the Day:

1) Name the democratic countries that have an American military presence beyond the embassies?

2) Name the non-democratic countries that have an American military presence beyond the embassies?

3) As things are today, which is more applicable for Iraq?

Posted by Happy at 03/23/2009 @ 1:16pm
Bush hired Cheney based on his resiliency and acerbic attitude toward dummies like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi, etc. What's wrong with that? Some of these jerks need a jolt back to reality rather than living in the never never land of cap and trade and global warming.

Posted by shorewater at 03/23/2009 @ 1:22pm
Quiz of the Day

1) Name the number of years that the Democratic party has been in power during the last 30 years.

2) Name the number of days that the current president has been in office

3) Name the number of news articles devoted to pointing out how the current financial crisis is completely attributable to 'those on the left' and their 'dark agenda'.

Remember: Answer carefully! Lefty is going to get you!

Posted by ficheye at 03/23/2009 @ 1:32pm
Cheney may be auditioning for talk radio. Is he gearing up for a ratings war with Limbaugh or a contest with him for leadership of the Republican Rump?

Or is it the frustration of a forceably retired Right-wing ideolog with nothing working but his mouth?

Some day, and I pray it be soon, the press will tire of this Fafner banished to his cave. I have ambivalent feelings about that time, however. He is a pebble in any Republican's shoe. There is also the grim worry that some day I will find a fuzzy and unlaundered Dick Cheney, fulminating and bloviating on a soap box in my beloved Union Square.

Posted by JFHill at 03/23/2009 @ 1:38pm
We haven't created a democratically governed Iraq, until we can remove our troops. If the democratic government of Iraq can actually govern the country without foreign troops, then the country isn't truly democratically governed.

Posted by Guiles at 03/23/2009 @ 11:46am

So, Germany, Japan, South Korea are what in your mind? totalitarian govts?

Posted by antisocialist at 03/23/2009 @ 1:42pm
How many combat troops reside in those countries named by our resident cons?

In those countries, how many generals are getting attacked on the street? How many cabinet officials have been assasinated?

From the end of WWII to the mid fifties, how many of those countries had even a remote resemblance to Iraq 2009?

You guys have been trying to make a comparison to WWII and Iraq since day one of the war. It is not there, no matter how hard you try.

The closer example is Yugoslvia, we still have troops there, a small number, and they are not dying either.

You spent 3 trillion of your childresn money in a foriegn country, now you don't want to spend any at home, Sick Sad. Shameless.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2009 @ 1:55pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/23/2009 @ 1:42pm

Do the US military in those countries prop up those governments and protect their "leaders" from their own citizens?

Do we pay out millions a month to "Awakening Councils" in Germany, Japan and S. Korea?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2009 @ 1:57pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/23/2009 @ 1:42pm

The usual questions for the False Analogy-

1. How many Nazi insurgent attacks after May 1945?

2. How many "kamikaze" bombings after August 1945 in Tokyo?

3. Was South Korea hosting teas with Kim Il-Sung in 1954?

Did we raise taxes to pay for those wars, or put them on a national credit card?

Posted by Mask at 03/23/2009 @ 2:12pm
Doesn't anybody think that Congress should wait until Hersh brings some actual evidence?

Are we going to have hearings about the Bilderbergs, Freemasons, the anti-christ?

If Hersh WAS onto something, he shouldn't have tipped his hand.

Patrice Lumumba. You're it!

Posted by gangpapist at 03/23/2009 @ 2:27pm
SO... does anyone out there now wonder who assasinated the former pakastani lady president???or the that lebanese dude, that was killed by a syrian???? oh my....who else has been killed lately??

Posted by PAULYG at 03/23/2009 @ 2:39pm
The only thing we don't know about Obamanation and the Demoncrats is WHO will be the attack dog "dummy" of the week, month, quarter etc.

Anything to distract the non-thinking myopic leftist who voted for the change they will have left after 75% taxes it will take to pay this Cabals spending spree!

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/23/2009 @ 2:46pm
Posted by Happy at 03/23/2009 @ 1:16pm

Again. Wait until the situation has panned out. We left Afghanistan and thought it wold all be great.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/23/2009 @ 2:56pm
For mask and crab on their question;

Guiles stated that a country that that had foreign troops would not be a democracy untilt the foreign troops left.

You are the ones adding qualifications to his statement and then trying to hold me more than he/she stated-of course that is your usual modus operandi.

Regardless, name another Arab country in the ME that even approaches the level of democracy in place currently in Iraq?

you guys are consistent hypocrites on this. You'll never applaud the Iraqis for developing a democratic or even close to a democratic govt because that might mean giving Bush some credit.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/23/2009 @ 2:58pm
And I still haven't even gotten to the criticism for even giving any credibility to Hersh who has had us invading Iran every year for the past 4 years.

And I certainly hope it was true that we operated assassination squads. They are certainly a good alternative to full scale war and have been used by govts ever since govts were created by man.

The push by leftist Democratic Congresses to revile this effective tool that we used to employ very successfully just points again that the left hates to win. They would rather see evil people, organizations, and evil govts triumph over taking effective steps to halt the acts of those who would attack us.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/23/2009 @ 3:02pm
And I certainly hope it was true that we operated assassination squads. They are certainly a good alternative to full scale war and have been used by govts ever since govts were created by man.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/23/2009 @ 2:58pm |

Yep. One shot, one kill ops on jihadists foreign or domestic sounds peachy to me. No collateral damage.

Some lefties would have us lay down and die.

Posted by gangpapist at 03/23/2009 @ 3:11pm
cheney = pure evil.

this guy killed 60,000 salmon for votes. (and with it destroyed the west coast salmon fishery and the families and buisinesses that depend on it).

this is not a left or right issue.

he just better dig a deep bunker the secret service protection is just about up.

Posted by pacificgreeneugene at 03/23/2009 @ 3:32pm
And I certainly hope it was true that we operated assassination squads. They are certainly a good alternative to full scale war and have been used by govts ever since govts were created by man.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/23/2009 @ 3:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

.

Ah yes, assissination squads...a 'good' alternative...another gem from the self-professed (faux) "christian".

Hey Mask, you should file that one next to the 'should have dropped nukes on the Chinese' quote.

Yet more evidence that Larry worships a much different 'christ' than the rest of the world's Christians.

Posted by Lillian at 03/23/2009 @ 3:43pm
Ah yes, assissination squads...a 'good' alternative...another gem from the self-professed (faux) "christian".

Posted by Lillian at 03/23/2009 @ 3:43pm

If Obama announced at a press conference today that some special ops had found and killed bin Laden, there would be much rejoicing, except apparently at your house. The action would, after all, have been carried out by an 'assassination squad.'

Please stop with the bogus theology. 95% of christians should be in the ovens by your definition.

Posted by gangpapist at 03/23/2009 @ 3:50pm
Ah yes, assissination squads...a 'good' alternative...another gem from the self-professed (faux) "christian". Posted by Lillian at 03/23/2009 @ 3:43pm

Please stop with the bogus theology. 95% of christians should be in the ovens by your definition. Posted by gangpapist at 03/23/2009 @ 3:50pm

Actually Lillian makes a salient point, and it's not her bogus theology. Indeed, it's just conventional christian theology.

Murder like all sin, beginnings in the human mind (Matthew 15:18-19; Mark 7:20-23) it starts as a thought, in this case hatred, which leads to the action of murder (James 1:13-15; 4:1-3). The opposite of hating someone is loving them, we should even love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48), seeking not revenge, but looking for ways to help them (Romans 12:17-21).

"95% of christians should be in the ovens by your definition." - This is an interesting statement which we could draw at least 1 conclusion. There are numerous 'faux' christians in the world, which is indeed possible(how many self professed christians could admit that they genuinely love Osama bin Laden as much as they love they their brothers/sisters/children etc). But don't listen to me..

Christians must be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9, Romans 14:19), forgiving those who do them harm (Ephesians 4:29-32; Colossians 3:12-14; Matthew 6:9-15; Mark 11:25-26), treating their enemies with love (Luke 6:27-36) and not seeking revenge (Romans 12:17-21; 1 Peter 3:8-12). Hatred which is the same as murder (1 John 3:15), is unforgiving, vengeful and hostile towards one's enemies.

"If Obama announced at a press conference today that some special ops had found and killed bin Laden, there would be much rejoicing, except apparently at your house." - Not much rejoicing right? Perhaps she's a christian?

Posted by hdthoreau at 03/23/2009 @ 4:35pm
Posted by hdthoreau at 03/23/2009 @ 4:35pm

Yes, indeed. There is plenty in the NT that you can use to argue that Christians should lay down and die.

You could also say that we should all still follow Levitical law. "Think not that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them."

So yes, we are all heretics. Our Messiah was a heretic, so what do you expect?

It is only when we commit particular heresies: lack of support for a massive government, support for national defense, questionable or otherwise, that y'all get froggy.

Our heretic Messiah was murdered by the social-engineering, progressive government of the time. He was another dangerous, backwards Heeb, and back then y'all knew how to deal with his type.

So goddamn us if we want to leave the dirty work to the government, and leave most of the good works to the people, who have no power to gain from helping others.

Maybe you should deny us the right to vote, or nationalize the churches. Clearly hatred is our God. What to do with people like us? Think pre-emptively.

Posted by gangpapist at 03/23/2009 @ 4:58pm
Yes, indeed. There is plenty in the NT that you can use to argue that Christians should lay down and die. - Again it is not ME who is saying this, it's the new testament, something christians supposedly abide by. Now if laying down and dying or turning the other cheek too much for you, I won't begrudge you. Indeed it is quite Roman of you.

You could also say that we should all still follow Levitical law. "Think not that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them." So yes, we are all heretics. Our Messiah was a heretic, so what do you expect? - Indeed, he was quite radical. I'm not saying that you are heretics. Quite to the contrary, you have far more in common with the Romans. Surely,

It is only when we commit particular heresies: lack of support for a massive government, support for national defense, questionable or otherwise, that y'all get froggy. - Interesting point. I would agree that many progressives and liberals would question and get 'froggy' over extrajudicial killings or illegal wars. However, is not massive government support actually something we both support right? Indeed, the trillions of Massive govt support for Iraq was supported by perhaps even yourself?

Posted by hdthoreau at 03/23/2009 @ 5:23pm
I'm putting my money into aluminum! After reading this thread and the posts there is going to be a shortage of tin foil to make hats, suits and cover the windows of leftist! Don't forget to recycle it!

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/23/2009 @ 5:31pm
Our heretic Messiah was murdered by the social-engineering, progressive government of the time. He was another dangerous, backwards Heeb, and back then y'all knew how to deal with his type. - Yes, 'we' do know how to deal with radical types....Inés Murillo(a Honduran tortured in the 1980s), "testified that her captors, including at least one CIA agent -- his involvement was confirmed in Senate testimony by the CIA's deputy director -- hung her from the ceiling naked, forced her to eat dead birds and rats raw, made her stand for hours without sleep and without being allowed to urinate, poured freezing water over her at regular intervals for extended periods, beat her bloody, and applied electric shocks to her body, including her genitals." Well at least she survived right? 'WE' certainly do know how to deal with radical types, no?

So goddamn us if we want to leave the dirty work to the government, and leave most of the good works to the people, who have no power to gain from helping others. - So, we leave the crimes(i meant 'dirty' work) to the government? Now that is quite a government you advocate for. I, on the other hand, and many others at the Nation believe the we can and should insist on better. How about just the minimum then? Perhaps one that does not commit murder or torture in our name. Maybe some christians could accept even that?

Maybe you should deny us the right to vote, or nationalize the churches. Clearly hatred is our God. What to do with people like us? Think pre-emptively. - I need to nothing of the sort. All progressives or liberals need to do investigate/expose crimes and debate advocates of assassination/torture et al.

Posted by gangpapist at 03/23/2009 @ 4:58pm

Posted by hdthoreau at 03/23/2009 @ 5:43pm
Posted by hdthoreau at 03/23/2009 @ 5:23pm

Along the way we developed the capacity for self-defense. Begrudge that all you want, maybe you would be happier with Odin or Baal, progressive deities that they were.

The teachings of JC were advice to the community of believers, the embryonic church, not a Constitution for a Christian state. He was not a theocrat. If you want to live in a society that keeps government truer to the precepts of Scripture, try Saudi Arabia.

Sure, Christians of varying political bents sometimes "vote their morals," but it is not the intention of most to create the kingdom of heaven on earth through government.

I have my own beefs with Christian cons: "prosperity theology," the putrid "Left Behind" series. But the demonization of traditional Christians by the Left, because they dare to blaspheme your own utopian fantasies is as bigoted as it is counter-productive.

Posted by gangpapist at 03/23/2009 @ 5:50pm
Along the way we developed the capacity for self-defense. Begrudge that all you want, maybe you would be happier with Odin or Baal, progressive deities that they were. - I care very little as to which deity you worship. Now, your capacity for self-defence does not grant the US a license for extrajudicial murder. Begrudge that all you want; you'll need to pass laws that allow extrajudicial murder.

The teachings of JC were advice to the community of believers, the embryonic church, not a Constitution for a Christian state. He was not a theocrat. If you want to live in a society that keeps government truer to the precepts of Scripture, try Saudi Arabia. - The society I want is one that keeps the government true to ITS precepts. Here are some concerning torture: United States Bill of Rights (1789), Amendment 8 " ...nor (shall) cruel or unusual punishment be inflicted."

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 5 "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment."

Geneva Conventions (1949) Article 99, Third Convention "no moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused "

UN Minimum Standards for the Treatment of Prisoners (1957), Rule 31 "Corporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel, inhumane or degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited..."

Sure, Christians of varying political bents sometimes "vote their morals," but it is not the intention of most to create the kingdom of heaven on earth through government. - The outlawing of extrajudicial killings by the US hardly qualifies as even remotely utopian or 'creating a kingdom of heaven on earth.' It's as minimal as the 13th amendment.

Posted by hdthoreau at 03/23/2009 @ 6:27pm
Posted by hdthoreau at 03/23/2009 @ 6:27pm

Look, I'm probably not who you might imagine I am. I'm not for Murder Inc.

Cheney is a relic, leftover from the vile profiteers of the Cold War. As Bush I's sec of defense he buried mountains of evidence that hundreds of American POW's had been left behind in Laos and Viet Nam. Some patriot.

Sometimes you lefties don't give yourselves credit. You might not have ended the war in Viet Nam, but you changed the way the US uses it's military, and how the military fights.

I was there in Iraq. The Rules of Engagement are very strict, as they should be. I saw death and destruction all the time, but very little of it came from us.

You want water-boarding off the menu? Be my guest. But before you hysterically accuse the people who try to protect our country of savagery, consider that all SF and military pilots attend SERE school, where they VOLUNTARILY subject themselves to water-boarding and worse.

Bush's liberty-for-security swaps pale in comparison to the detention of Japanese citizens in WWII, don't they?

For y'all he was always THE enemy. Nothing he could have done, other than nothing, would have been legitimate.

One day we may all be nostalgic for the goold old days of American empire, when there was at least some pretense of morality behind our actions. We will soon be a wholly-owned subsidiary of China, with no ability to either pay back our debt, or, absent a middle-class, purchase their slave-made crap. When CNN reports that a Navy Seal team have liberated a Chinese arm shipment to Sudan from Somali hijackers, you'll know the new era has come.

Posted by gangpapist at 03/23/2009 @ 6:57pm
But the demonization of traditional Christians by the Left

Posted by gangpapist at 03/23/2009 @ 5:50pm

You have it backwards or at a mininum lopsided. It is not the demonization of traditional christians, but the bastardization by the right. Somehow the right has convinced the public throught the use of the MSM that they are the party of Christian values. However, neither party holds that crown, and you may agree. While the left condones abortion, the right condones collatoral damage, death squads, and pre-emptive war. Both actions are likely abominations in Gods eye.

We have all had the capacity for defense, and somehow the right has convinced themselves that pre-emptive strikes is defense. It is not, it is nothing but agression. Validate it to yourself however you will, but don't tell me it is defense.

Posted by Extraneous at 03/23/2009 @ 7:08pm
And I certainly hope it was true that we operated assassination squads.<snip>The push by leftist Democratic Congresses to revile this effective tool that we used to employ very successfully just points again that the left hates to win. They would rather see evil people, organizations, and evil govts triumph over taking effective steps to halt the acts of those who would attack us.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/23/2009 @ 3:02pm

Yep. One shot, one kill ops on jihadists foreign or domestic sounds peachy to me. No collateral damage.

Some lefties would have us lay down and die.

Posted by gangpapist at 03/23/2009 @ 3:11pm

---

Umm,

1976, President Gerald R. Ford issued Executive Order 11905 - No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

1981, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12333 - No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

EO 12333 remained unchanged under GHW Bush's administration.

1998 - President Bill Clinton amended EO 12333 to explicitly state that the ban on assasination did not apply in the case of bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Posted by FLaim at 03/23/2009 @ 7:44pm
Yeah, in the movie of my mind I have often thought that, like gangpapist, it would be the most efficient use of resources to just take people out. Ideally, it would be cheaper than war.

But then the mists clear and you're left with the burning questions: Who would give the order? Who would make that list? And, importantly: Who would be on it?

Rabble rousers? Home grown anti-war agitators? The way things panned out with Cheney and John Woo it really brings up some uncomfortable imagery. Is there a real Rambo out there with stratospherically high moral ideals, an untouchable sense of right and wrong? Or is it more likely that the director of said policy will be someone who, on the way to 'a righteous kill', decides to take out a few people who are just an annoyance, like Paul Wellstone and Vincent Foster? It sounds conspiratorial, but it fits into the imaginary program pretty easily.

And recently there was a program with an interview of someone who got close to bin Laden. Their instructions were to break off the chase. Obviously, we didn't get him. The guys in Serbia would have been excellent choices. No. The military junta in Burma? The Saudi ruling family? Do we destabilize, or just shoot bit players who are axial fomenters of unpopular policies? Who will die, and who decides who will die?

We watch 'The Day of the Jackal' (the original) with a sense of mixed emotion. We want him to succeed, but it's that deal where you have a little angel on one shoulder, and a little devil on the other. You know what's right, but there's that fascination with getting away with mischief.

But in the final result we have the actuality: If there is such a policy, the actions should not have been decided by Dick Cheney. Spare us that, Shooter, please. You can shoot some lawyers.

Posted by ficheye at 03/23/2009 @ 8:31pm
"or even has the trots, the better. "

Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/23/2009 @ 12:45pm

That was pretty good.

Cheney has a bad case of the trots.

Should have been impeached, is a criminal, and should face a judge.

Anything else lacks intellectual credibility, honesty, and or maturity.

Posted by V at 03/23/2009 @ 8:38pm
As Bush I's sec of defense he buried mountains of evidence that hundreds of American POW's had been left behind in Laos and Viet Nam. Some patriot. - I do not have problem with his patriotism, his profiteering, or his draft dodging. Even Aristotle knew of the fallacy of hypocrisy, if Cheney said it was wrong to murder people even though he ran a hit squad, he would be correct. I care about what he actually did in office; its minimalist.

I was there in Iraq. The Rules of Engagement are very strict, as they should be. I saw death and destruction all the time, but very little of it came from us. - The fact we were in Iraq is the root of the problem.

You want water-boarding off the menu? Be my guest. But before you hysterically accuse the people who try to protect our country of savagery, consider that all SF and military pilots attend SERE school, where they VOLUNTARILY subject themselves to water-boarding and worse. - How many are killed by their interrogators at SERE? How many are not allowed to leave SERE? How many SFs soldiers and military police were required to spend 5yrs of their life at SERE and subjected to daily 'SERE' treatment by their interrogators? There is no moral equivalence between a soldier who is allowed to leave SERE at any time with an individual detained and tortured for years, many of whom are completely innocent. Even the guilty ones are not allowed to be detained indefinitely without trial and tortured. So, just to be clear, our soldiers defend the constitution of this nation against savagery by breaking the very laws of the constitution? We have then a situation where might makes right...though the constitution calls for establishing Justice, we can amend it and delete that phrase. At least, we will be internally consistent then.

Posted by hdthoreau at 03/23/2009 @ 8:48pm
Posted by hdthoreau at 03/23/2009 @ 8:48pm

In theater, people are detained all the time, and most often released, or in some cases turned over to the locals. The population at Guantanamo are special.

I agree that they should not be held indefinitely without a trial. Perhaps we should work out a deal with a village in say, Bangladesh, and release them all immediately with a nice new suit and a check for $200. They could party and raise their glasses to toast their newfound freedom, then toss the acid in the faces of some pretty young ladies.

You see, exaggerating the alternate, and ugly faces of reality doesn't get us any closer to real solutions.

Posted by gangpapist at 03/23/2009 @ 9:16pm
Posted by gangpapist at 03/23/2009 @ 6:57pm

Bush's liberty-for-security swaps pale in comparison to the detention of Japanese citizens in WWII, don't they? For y'all he was always THE enemy. Nothing he could have done, other than nothing, would have been legitimate. - First, I'm sure you meant American citizens of japanese origin and japanese citizens. With that out of the way, I would stand with you on the fact that the mass internment of those groups(german, italian, and japanese) during WWII was heinous and illegal. I would have found several Bush actions lawful and legitimate namely: not illegally invading Iraq, after invading not torturing Iraqis at various prisons, not ordering extrajudicial murders, and not torturing detainees at black sites. I would have regarded those decisions as legitimate and lawful. I would gladly throw Roosevelt in jail for internment, would you throw Bush/Cheney in jail for extrajudicial murders/torture?

Look, I'm probably not who you might imagine I am. I'm not for Murder Inc. - I didn't think you were for 'Murder Inc.' I'm quite glad about that. All I'm trying to say is that we have a long history in this country of state sponsored or sanctioned murder by many presidents and many political parties. And the US government, with all its faults, is not the worst and has some admirable qualities. But simply we can and should insist on better.

Posted by hdthoreau at 03/23/2009 @ 9:22pm
There was no surge, it has no meaning. Circumstances at the onset of the "Surge" were such that even if the "Surge" would have consisted of just one troop it would have been hailed by the Bush administration and right wing pundits as a resounding success. This "New Way Forward" was and is a scam.

The deployment of 20,000 troops to Baghdad and the Anbar Province as well as the stoploss extended tour of 4,000 marines mean't little if anything in comparison to a ceasefire by Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army in decreasing violence. Not to mention the ethnic cleansing that had been going on in Baghdad's neighborhoods for years. Separating Sunni and Shia areas into little walled off enclaves.

And in paying off Sunni militias to not attack and cooperate with American Forces in Anbar.

The supposed "Surge" was the first step in rewriting history in order to enable an "American Victory" scenario in Iraq.

This bullshit still continues to be preached by the media.

It is sickening..

Posted by chaoszen at 03/23/2009 @ 9:47pm
The amazing thing is Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and Rove are war criminals at the very least. And in Cheney's case probably a psychopathic and sociopathic serial killer. And yet they are free to wander about the country, speaking freely and doing as they wish. Still spreading the disease of their neo-fascist agenda. Only in America.

The sad thing is that in every other part of the world, this is looked at in a mixture of incredulous shame and awe. We are the fools of the world. A Tarot card of blindness to reality, about to plunge over the cliff. But unlike the "Fool" in the Tarot it appears there is no learning or growth contained in our folly..

Posted by chaoszen at 03/23/2009 @ 10:00pm
In theater, people are detained all the time, and most often released, or in some cases turned over to the locals. - I would agree that the majority of those detained are release, which does suggest that there might be something wrong with the detention criteria to begin with. Second, though the majority are released in terms of absolute numbers, there are large numbers of individuals who are remain detained. It's like I tell my patients when I offer then smoking cessation therapies, "smoking cessation therapies have about a 15-17% success rate which is low, but if you're one of those 15%, it's 100% for you." I don't doubt that we may have good intentions, but thats simply not enough.

The population at Guantanamo are special. I agree that they should not be held indefinitely without a trial. Perhaps we should work out a deal with a village in say, Bangladesh, and release them all immediately with a nice new suit and a check for $200. They could party and raise their glasses to toast their newfound freedom, then toss the acid in the faces of some pretty young ladies. You see, exaggerating the alternate, and ugly faces of reality doesn't get us any closer to real solutions. - Well, I have a better idea. How about we just give them due process proscribed under the 5th amendment "...No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...." or the 14th amendment "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Also, that would include both procedural and substantive due process. Now, i know the Bill of Rights might not be a 'real solution' to some citizens.

Posted by gangpapist at 03/23/2009 @ 9:16pm

Posted by hdthoreau at 03/23/2009 @ 10:12pm
Posted by hdthoreau at 03/23/2009 @ 10:12pm

I don't believe that foreign combatants, or whatever designation we give them, are entitled to the same rights as citizens. AQ is counting on us for that: to give them ACLU lawyers and trials that make them terror superstars.

We should not retreat into an illiberal fetal position either. We do that, we lose. We give them a plate at the grown-ups table, we lose. It's a predicament.

I do wish that it would all just go away, but it won't.

Posted by gangpapist at 03/23/2009 @ 11:20pm
"Regardless, name another Arab country in the ME that even approaches the level of democracy in place currently in Iraq?"

How about you name another Arab country in the ME that has hunderds of thousands of US troops. The point is, a "democracy" that requires military presence to maintain order is obviously not a democracy.

Posted by danconstan at 03/23/2009 @ 11:36pm
Regardless, name another Arab country in the ME that even approaches the level of democracy in place currently in Iraq?

Posted by antisocialist

Lebanon.

Posted by koroviev at 03/23/2009 @ 11:41pm
gang,

you've been hanging with cheney too long..

calm down.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/23/2009 @ 11:47pm
frost,

Remind me to tell you how exasperating it is to have gone through that meat-grinder in the 120+ sun to come back to a country mortally wounded by the bin ladenist wing of the bourgeoisie.

You can have him.

Posted by gangpapist at 03/24/2009 @ 12:18am
Happy there is an interesting article being run right now, about how in Iraq the Sunnis are getting representation in the Iraqi militia which they fear might drive them back to democracy. I guess that's the sign of a good democracy right?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/24/2009 @ 12:23am
Lebanon.

Posted by koroviev at 03/23/2009 @ 11:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Hezzbolah assasinations in lieu of elections sponsored by Syria is a tangible democracy?

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/24/2009 @ 01:10am
... I saw the angel of death... and he had snake eyes.

Posted by ficheye at 03/24/2009 @ 03:13am
Whoa! Hold on...better get a hold of Ridge, Chertoff, Cheney or whoever was in charge of those propaganda terror alerts and have them issue a full-on, bright red, bullshit alert....

Hezzbolah assasinations in lieu of elections sponsored by Syria is a tangible democracy?

Posted by comancheamerican

Wasn't Lebanon's Cedar Revolution part of the wave of democracy that was started by the invasion of Iraq?

Dubya wasn't too proud to take a measure of credit for this...And yet, there's a problem...

Posted by koroviev at 03/24/2009 @ 03:47am
So, it would be acceptable for Hugo Chavez or Castro to have roaming death squads in the USA?

Do I have this right cons?

And,as I read what some of you write, I have to think that Bin Laden was within his rights too.

Sad, that you wish to become what you claim to hate.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/24/2009 @ 06:41am
Congress has some investigating to do.

Cheney & Bush tried to blame the anthrax attacks on Iraq, though it was known to originate from a U.S. lab.

There was a deliberate attempt to blame Islamic extremists for the anthrax, while it was our own home-grown right-wing extremists in the U.S. government doing the job.

Who was behind the cover-up? Why didn't the press ever go after this story? The anthrax scientist who died recently didn't act alone, if he was involved at all.

The cover-up came from higher up the chain.

Posted by mr.moose at 03/24/2009 @ 09:31am
In contrast with creeps like the low-life Okie ignoramus and McViegh apologist COMA-NATION, eager for knee time before Cheney, we have access to some insiders who have forcefully indicted the George W. Loser's inner circle of pampered metrosexual Vanity Warriors. Loser and his Vanity Warriors worked tirelessly to harm America, from the top and from the inside.

[From WASHINGTONNOTE.COM, MARCH 17, 2009]

"Lawrence B. Wilkerson was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell and is chairman of the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba 21st Century Policy Initiative:

There are several dimensions to the debate over the U.S. prison facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba that the media have largely missed and, thus, of which the American people are almost completely unaware. For that matter, few within the government who were not directly involved are aware either.

The first of these is the utter incompetence of the battlefield vetting in Afghanistan during the early stages of the U.S. operations there. Simply stated, no meaningful attempt at discrimination was made in-country by competent officials, civilian or military, as to who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation.

This was a factor of having too few troops in the combat zone, of the troops and civilians who were there having too few people trained and skilled in such vetting, and of the incredible pressure coming down from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others to "just get the bastards to the interrogators".

It did not help that poor U.S. policies such as bounty-hunting, a weak understanding of cultural tendencies, and an utter disregard for the fundamentals of jurisprudence prevailed as well (no blame in the latter realm should accrue to combat soldiers as this it not their bailiwick anyway).

The second dimension that is largely unreported is that several in the U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released.

But to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership from virtually day one of the so-called Global War on Terror and these leaders already had black marks enough: the dead in a field in Pennsylvania, in the ashes of the Pentagon, and in the ruins of the World Trade Towers. They were not about to admit to their further errors at Guantanamo Bay. Better to claim that everyone there was a hardcore terrorist, was of enduring intelligence value, and would return to jihad if released. I am very sorry to say that I believe there were uniformed military who aided and abetted these falsehoods, even at the highest levels of our armed forces."

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 03/24/2009 @ 09:55am
More Wilkerson from MARCH 17...

"The fourth unknown is the ad hoc intelligence philosophy that was developed to justify keeping many of these people, called the mosaic philosophy. Simply stated, this philosophy held that it did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance (this general philosophy, in an even cruder form, prevailed in Iraq as well, helping to produce the nightmare at Abu Ghraib). All that was necessary was to extract everything possible from him and others like him, assemble it all in a computer program, and then look for cross-connections and serendipitous incidentals--in short, to have sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified.

Thus, as many people as possible had to be kept in detention for as long as possible to allow this philosophy of intelligence gathering to work. The detainees' innocence was inconsequential. After all, they were ignorant peasants for the most part and mostly Muslim to boot.

Another unknown, a part of the fabric of the foregoing four, was the sheer incompetence involved in cataloging and maintaining the pertinent factors surrounding the detainees that might be relevant in any eventual legal proceedings, whether in an established court system or even in a kangaroo court that pretended to at least a few of the essentials, such as evidence.

Simply stated, even for those two dozen or so of the detainees who might well be hardcore terrorists, there was virtually no chain of custody, no disciplined handling of evidence, and no attention to the details that almost any court system would demand..."

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 03/24/2009 @ 10:01am
To the chagrin of America-hating shit-waste like COMA, Wilkerson continues: "As for the fear-mongering: "When we get people who are more interested in reading the rights to an Al Qaeda (sic) terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry," Cheney said. Who in the Obama administration has insisted on reading any al-Qa'ida terrorist his rights? More to the point, who in that administration is not interested in protecting the United States--a clear implication of Cheney's remarks.

But far worse is the unmistakable stoking of the 20 million listeners of Rush Limbaugh, half of whom we could label, judiciously, as half-baked nuts. Such remarks as those of the former vice president's are like waving a red flag in front of an incensed bull. And Cheney of course knows that. Cheney went on to say in his McLean interview that "Protecting the country's security is a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business. These are evil people and we are not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek." I have to agree but the other way around. Cheney and his like are the evil people and we certainly are not going to prevail in the struggle with radical religion if we listen to people such as he...

But al-Qa'ida will be back. Iraq, GITMO, Abu Ghraib, heavily-biased U.S. support for Israel, and a host of other strategic errors have insured al-Qa'ida's resilience, staying power and motivation. How we deal with the future attacks of this organization and its cohorts could well seal our fate, for good or bad. Osama bin Laden and his brain trust, Aman al-Zawahiri, are counting on us to produce the bad. With people such as Cheney assisting them, they are far more likely to succeed."

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 03/24/2009 @ 10:06am
Posted by Mask at 03/23/2009 @ 12:40pm

Re: #1, sorry about that, I did mis-read your earlier post.

Posted by cka2nd at 03/24/2009 @ 10:50am
At least the entertainment value of all these conspiracies is worth something. Go ahead and waste as much time as you like. If Cheney had actually done all this, Herch would have assumed room temperature years ago.

Posted by pyeatte at 03/24/2009 @ 10:55am
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 03/24/2009 @ 10:06am

Thanks for the WashingtonNote post. I hadn't seen that one yet. It really lays it all out clearly.

Posted by chaoszen at 03/24/2009 @ 11:03am
Posted by cka2nd at 03/24/2009 @ 10:50am

No prob.

Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 11:11am
Posted by pyeatte at 03/24/2009 @ 10:55am

I fail to see how anyone could find humor in something as insidious as these revelations. Pulitzer Prize winning investigative jounalist Seymour Hersh is rarely in error in his reporting.

And thank the God's that he has not as you indicated, "assumed room temperature."

Posted by chaoszen at 03/24/2009 @ 11:14am
Cheney is a dangerous little cockaroach curmudgeon, and needs to be stepped on with a big boot.

Where is Luke Skywalker when we need him?

Posted by chaoszen at 03/24/2009 @ 11:23am
I fail to see how anyone could find humor in something as insidious as these revelations. Pulitzer Prize winning investigative jounalist Seymour Hersh is rarely in error in his reporting.

And thank the God's that he has not as you indicated, "assumed room temperature."

Posted by chaoszen at 03/24/2009 @ 11:14am

Excuse me. When has he ever been right?

He has repeatedly since 2005 stated we were invading Iran each year.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 11:24am
He has repeatedly since 2005 stated we were invading Iran each year.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 11:24am

And we are invading Iran each year. In one covert way or another..

Posted by chaoszen at 03/24/2009 @ 11:34am
And we are invading Iran each year. In one covert way or another..

Posted by chaoszen at 03/24/2009 @ 11:34am

That's a nice attempt to sidestep, but Hersh said we were launching a full scale war, not some CIA covert action.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 11:40am
Here is a column from Bill O'Reilly that mocks the nonsense promoted by lib "journalist" Seymour Hersh and The Nation in the article at the top of this thread. Might as well throw some humor into this thread.

Blame Bush March 19, 2009

(my links may contain spaces that need to be removed)

http://www.billoreilly.com/ column;jsessionid= BFB349F7B0484C6A51721FF5274261EA?pid=25567

Here's an excerpt:

"In the months to come, we can expect all kinds of horror stories from the left about alleged Bush-Cheney atrocities. These will deflect attention from present day problems and provide liberal thinkers with the intense indignation they so desperately need. In addition, the bevy of Bush-Cheney sins will supply the media and individual opportunists with "product." So, in order to get ahead of this inevitable situation, I will now predict some future headlines."

===========

As long as I am posting in, I will put links to 2 other articles that disprove recent lib theories. No, they are not specific to the subject of this thread but they are common topics. I am posting them when convenient for me to do so, these articles will be mocked and rejected by libs, as always.

Jewish World Review March 24, 2009 28 Adar 5769 Cheap Political Theater By Thomas Sowell http://www.jewishworldreview.com /cols/sowell032409.php3 (this is about the antics of Democrats, who are resonsible in large part for the current economic problem, but point the finger of blame elsewhere in a dangerous way)

Jewish World Review March 24, 2009 / 28 Adar 5769 Our enemies sense weakness By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. http://www.jewishworldreview.com /cols/gaffney032409.php3 (This article is about how Obama is weakening our ability to defend ourselves. Libs think this is good)

Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 11:43am
By the way:

To Phil McCrevice - I know I am an assclown.

To Frosty Zoom - I know I am being duped, and that the sun is free.

To Cccomfo1 - I know that I am acting the same as those I criticize.

To ficheye - I know that all your posts on this thread were planted as bait, and I have taken the bait, and you are having fun with me.

To Mask - I know I haven't answered all your questions. Yes I voted for John McCain who supported global warming, and no I don't have the percentage of Islamic radicals, and yes I know President Bush did not take out the Iranian nuclear program, and I don't remember what else right now.

Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 11:47am
As far as when he has ever been right.. Let see hmmm.

The My Lai Massacre maybe? Or perhaps "Project Jennifer"? Israel's Nuclear Weapons program and the whistle-blower incident? Or blowing the lid off of Abu Ghraib and the "Copper Green" program? The invasion and occupation of Iraq due to circumventing the normal intelligence analysis function of the CIA by Cheney and Rumsfeld? Bush plans to Bomb Iran? Israel's plans to attack Lebanon to deal with Hezbollah two months in advance of the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers?

You know stuff like that..

Posted by chaoszen at 03/24/2009 @ 11:55am
Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 11:43am

Anytime you start off quoting or citing something from a column from Bill O, you have immediately just performed a castration of credibility on yourself.

No thinking people except the nuts in the cupcake take anything that clown says as relevant.

Posted by chaoszen at 03/24/2009 @ 12:03pm
chaoszen,

Yours was an excellent post, your point proven as usual.

All you on the left have to do is declare something to be so, and POOF! it is automatic so, by force of lib command.

Lib opinions are self-contained packages of truth, lib opinion is also lib fact and lib evidence and lib proof.

You seemed to have overlooked, though, that Mr. Hersh's "resume" includes service at the Washington Bureau of the New York Times, no doubt instrumental in his learning his "craft" or "profession"

As you are or should be aware, the New York Times is a common household supply item.

One purchases the New York Times when one has a new puppy, and needs to lay something down on the kitchen floor in case of accidents until the puppy learns to wait until taken outside or let outside to do it's business.

Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 12:21pm
"All you on the left have to do is declare something to be so, and POOF! it is automatic so..."--Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 12:21pm

You mean like "Mission Accomplished" or "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie!"?

Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 12:38pm
Mask,

No, I was thinking more along the lines of:

1. "Bush lied, thousands died" - when most people including Democrats, Europeans and Saddam's own generals believed him to have WMD, we had no way of finding out what the real situation was, Saddam was obstructing efforts to do so, and Saddam would have been building WMD again if he had not been taken out.

OR

2. "The Wealthy pay no tax" or the lower intensity "The Wealthy do not pay their fair share" when it turns out the wealthy pay most of the tax (look it up at www.irs.gov

OR

3. "Bush did nothing to prevent 9/11 and the August 2001 memo proves it so" when the August memo contained no specific information not known before and the Bush administration was re-evaluating how to deal with the threat of al-Qaeda in a more productive way than had been done before. (under W.J.Clinton).

OR

4. "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed." - Joe Biden, September 2008 - fantastic stuff, considering Herbert Hoover and not FDR was President in 1929 and televisions were introduced to the public at the NY World's Fair in 1939.

Stuff like that, Mask.

Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 12:53pm
Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 12:21pm

Nice. So now you are going to diss the largest metropolitan newspaper in the United States. And then try and hook the connection of your opinion of that newspaper to some sort of inane effort on your part to discredit a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist who happens to work for them?

The "Gray Lady" has won 98 Pulitzer Prizes, the most of any other paper. I believe we could safely assume that it is not a "rag", although it may be used in a wise effort by readers to recycle it for use in puppy training, wrapping breakables when moving, tinder for fireplaces, burial wraps for fish guts and the like.

Where would you propose that an investigative journalist work? Probably you would like to see them unemployed. Because we used to have a lot of them to keep the hounds at bay. But lately it seems we have a shortage. Seymour Hersh and Greg Pallast are among the few that are left to tell the truth..

Posted by chaoszen at 03/24/2009 @ 12:55pm
Mask,

I am sorry I forgot another important one:

5. "There is no liberal bias in the media" or "Liberal Bias is a myth" or "We need the fairness doctrine to make things fair" - in light of how fair minded and non-biased and objective Katie Couric did not challenge Joe Biden about Franklin D. Roosevelt speaking to the American people on televsion when he wasn't President and people did not have televisions, during her interview of him last September.

Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 1:00pm
Sad, that you wish to become what you claim to hate.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/24/2009 @ 06:41am

I think letting SF hunt AQ ops in countries that are either incapable of policing themselves, or whose governments are down with the flying planes into our buildings thing is boffo.

Know why? Becuase I am a terrible man. Become what I hate? I hate what is not me. I can't become not-me.

I'm sitting here in my "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" tee with the sleeves cut off, listening to megadeth, wishing that I could reach through the monitor with my boxcutter and slash your jugular, till your blood drips from my chinny chin chin.

Ooga Ooga! kill them kill them make them dead. we will dance naked beneath the benevolent moneyshot from the great cheney in the sky! ooga.

Posted by gangpapist at 03/24/2009 @ 1:03pm
chaoszen,

That is a good idea. Seymour Hersh unemployed. Very good idea.

You promote his Pulitzer Prizes. Mr. Peanut, Jimmy Carter, has won the Nobel Peace Prize. So has Algore. So what?

About Seymour Hersh:

Hersh's 1997 book about John F. Kennedy, The Dark Side of Camelot, made a number of controversial assertions about the former president, including that he had had a "first marriage" to a woman named Durie Malcolm that was never terminated, and that he had a close working relationship with mob boss Sam Giancana. In a Los Angeles Times review, Edward Jay Epstein cast doubt on these and other assertions, writing, "this book turns out to be, alas, more about the deficiencies of investigative journalism than about the deficiencies of John F. Kennedy."[22] Responding to the book, historian and former Kennedy aide Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called Hersh "the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered."[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Seymour_Hersh (link may contain spaces)

What a journalist!

Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 1:23pm
SJ "Blacks don't wanna vote anyway" CHERMAK pontificates shabbily yet again with further shambolic results and, as CHOAZEN put it with exquisite delicacy, auto-castrates himself with extreme prejudice:

"1. "Bush lied, thousands died" - when most people including Democrats, Europeans and Saddam's own generals believed him to have WMD...

--sjchermak, 03/24/2009 @ 12:53pm

Questions:

1. Blix and UNMOVIC were on the ground, roaming over & inspecting Iraq for weapons, & doing so with Dumsfeld's intelligence in hand. Now, SJ, tell us about the immense weapons dumps that they found there in late 2002/early 2003. Describe the "stuff of nightmare" fearsome nukes & delivery systems. *Please* do not leave any details aside in laying out the dimensions of Sadddam's werhmacht, as discovered by UNMOVIC guided by Dumsfeld, Fieth, & Cheney, as they combed the terrifying arsenal with which all of North America & Europe & Asia would be smoked by the evil asshole dictator whom Dummy himself had rimmed during the 1980s.

2. You will recall the US & UK abandoned attempts to compel the Security Council to sign off on force against Iraq (twisting arms & bugging embassies in the process) since the majority on the council were against invading. They thought it was a DUMB idea, not worth the candle. The Mexican delegation asked for a private breifing to see the evidence & came away believing that, in the words of MI5, that the "evidence" was being fit around the policy.

The NeoClowns had the chance to make the case to security/diplomatic pros. They shit the bed --- massively! Yet, SJSHITMAK comes in here, spun around with spin & spouting sickly stale talking points.

And 6 fucking yrs later, SJ *still* does not get what Chirac, the Mexicans, what everyone got 6 yrs ago!

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 03/24/2009 @ 1:25pm
Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 1:00pm

Bidens gaffs are humorous but not harmful. He is not the sharpest tool in the shed. And there was no malice of forethought. And Katie Couric probably made a wise move in not embarrassing the V.P. by bringing his ignorance to his attention.

"2. "The Wealthy pay no tax" or the lower intensity "The Wealthy do not pay their fair share" when it turns out the wealthy pay most of the tax."

I will just address this blatant lie (all of them are), but I have limited time to deal with morons.

Let's take the year 2000 as an example. IRS data indicates that the richest 400 taxpayers paid about 27% of their income in federal, state and local taxes. Their average income being $151 million a year. On the other hand all other taxpayers had an average income of $34,600 and paid 40% of their income in taxes. So it is obvious that the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes. Especially considering that they make much higher use of the commons.

To fairly interpret the tax burden it has to to be looked at as a percentage of income. Any other way is just bullshit. Unless you are among the 400 highest income bracket crooks you don't know which side your bread is buttered on. And I doubt you are among this group. Which makes you a side show freak..

Posted by chaoszen at 03/24/2009 @ 1:36pm
No disrespect mean't to "side show freaks".

Posted by chaoszen at 03/24/2009 @ 1:38pm
This just in:

'Bill O'Reilly Says 'CHERMAK IS AN ASSCLOWN'.

A recent statement by the mild mannered Mr. O'Reilly seems to address a frequent blogger on the Nation magazines website. " I just couldn't stand it anymore" said Mr. O'Reilly. "This guy uses quotes from me to support himself after making strange and paranoid assumptions about the world and liberal politics. But his skin is way too thin for this kind of game! He goes for the bait like a halibut goes for herring. Toughen up CHERMAK! If you're going to say something radical, say it loud and say it proud! And by the way, watch out! LEFTY IS GOING TO GET YOU!! HE HAS A MOUSTACHE! LOOK BEHIND YOU! AAAAAAHHHH!! LEFTY HAS SNAKE EYES!!!"

We all struggle with the insanity of it all, sj.

But you don't seem to struggle at all.

Back to rightwingnews.com with you.

I think they're still selling the 'PARANOIA IS A FAMILY VALUE t-shirt.

Posted by ficheye at 03/24/2009 @ 1:54pm
"How can you be in two places at once when your not anywhere at all..."

Posted by chaoszen at 03/24/2009 @ 1:55pm
say it loud and say it proud! Posted by ficheye at 03/24/2009 @ 1:54pm

Nice use of a James Brown lyric. Damn, I gotta get more creative.

Posted by chaoszen at 03/24/2009 @ 2:00pm
chaoszen,

The wealthy pay most of the tax now (www.irs.gov). You say to "fairly" interpret the "tax burden" it has to be viewed as a percentage of income.

So, up the tax on the wealthy, who pay most of the tax now, and lower it on other people.

So we will have a country where most people pay virtually no tax at all. The wealthy will pay everybody's expenses!

For what purpose? Lib theory is great- until it intersects with reality.

Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 2:02pm
So, up the tax on the wealthy, who pay most of the tax now, and lower it on other people. Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 2:02pm

You almost had it right there, but then you lost it here:

"So we will have a country where most people pay virtually no tax at all. The wealthy will pay everybody's expenses!"

Obviously your reptile brain skipped right over my painstaking effort to educate you on the tax burden as expressed in a percentage of income and warped into alterworld. If we increase taxes on the wealthy to the point where they are paying an equitable amount of their income as compared to the rest of us then a state of balance will be achieved. A state of balance is usually considered to be a good thing.

And then the people who do all of the real work on this planet will rest easy and not rise up and spill the blood of the abusing elite. Which if you take a tour of history becomes quite apparent. It can get really messy. Check out a book from your local socialist library on the "French Revolution."

Posted by chaoszen at 03/24/2009 @ 2:22pm
Stuff like that, Mask.----Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 12:53pm

How about stuff like-

"One of the very difficult parts of the decision I made on the financial crisis was to use hardworking people's money to help prevent there to be a crisis." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009

"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009

"In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009

"I guess it's OK to call the secretary of education here 'buddy.' That means friend." --George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Jan. 8, 2009

"So I analyzed that and decided I didn't want to be the president during a depression greater than the Great Depression, or the beginning of a depression greater than the Great Depression." --George W. Bush, Washington D.C., Dec. 18, 2008

"People say, well, do you ever hear any other voices other than, like, a few people? Of course I do." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2008

"I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2008

"You know, I'm the President during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President." --George W. Bush, ABC News interview, Dec. 1, 2008

"I've been in the Bible every day since I've been the president." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Nov. 12, 2008

Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 2:29pm
We should have a country where most people pay virtually no tax at all.

The wealthy will pay everybody's expenses.

Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 2:02pm

.....

Thanks SJ. I'm sure that this will mean a lot to 'those on the left'.

I, however, think that it's more fair that everyone pays an appropriate percentage, equally distributing the burden based on overall wealth, capital gains and assets, but it's great to hear some conciliation from a conservative, especially someone who has all of his facts in order and constructs his opinions from verifiable information.

Doing the right thing is so important these days.

Posted by ficheye at 03/24/2009 @ 2:41pm
The My Lai Massacre maybe? Or perhaps "Project Jennifer"? Israel's Nuclear Weapons program and the whistle-blower incident? Or blowing the lid off of Abu Ghraib and the "Copper Green" program? The invasion and occupation of Iraq due to circumventing the normal intelligence analysis function of the CIA by Cheney and Rumsfeld? Bush plans to Bomb Iran? Israel's plans to attack Lebanon to deal with Hezbollah two months in advance of the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers?

You know stuff like that..

Posted by chaoszen at 03/24/2009 @ 11:55am

My Lai-part of the treasonous efforts of the left to make sure we lost to the communists

Project Jennifer-another attempt by Hersh to jeopardize our cold war efforts against the Russians

Israel Nukes-the only good thing about that from Hersh is it helped the Mossad get Vannu and put him in prison.

Hersh has continued to be wrong about Iraq and Iran

Hersh has yet to be proven right about Israel and the 2006 Lebannon war which Israel had every right to launch.

The man is simply another hardcore anti-american leftist posing as a journalist. And Palast is even more of a joke. He can't even get the leftist press in the US to use him so he has to rely upon the BBC. He is nothing but a leftist activist posing as a journalist. He is also more wacked out on facts than Hersh is.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 2:46pm
chaoszen,

State of balance? What kind of idiotic lib economic theory is that?

The wealthy pay most of the tax now.

You have laid down a "rule" that tax, in order to be fair, must be equally applied as a percentage of income to all people.

That is your artifical rule.

The wealthy pay most of the tax, but it isn't fair, in your opinion, because the tax equates to a lower percentage of their income.

But what about the amount of their income that is put forth towards the creation of businesses which provide jobs and provide opportunities for the sale of products and services people need in their lives?

You are not counting that, or taking that into consideration.

You are just viewing this as a class warfare exercise.

You on the left stoke the flames of class warfare by wrongly stating over the years that the wealthy pay no tax, and now you say that even if you admit (since the facts at www.irs.gov show past leftists claims to be wrong) the wealthly pay most of the tax it has to be raised further (not considering the economic consequence) so the "people" do not get upset!

So that is the purpose of taxation, make sure the "people" do not get upset.

Of course, successful creation and operation of businesses is not "real work". Only the "people" do "real work".

And now, we have to raise the taxation on the wealthy from 27% to 40%, to have "balance"...you are arbitrarily handing over money to the government that it does not need.

And you say the wealthy make more use of the "commons". What in God's name are the "commons".

You say I skipped over your painstaking effort to educate me. Not true, it is just that your effort was unadulterated nonsense that shows no economic understanding whatsoever, and belongs on Comedy Central.

Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 2:58pm
My Lai-part of the treasonous efforts of the left to make sure we lost to the communists Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 2:46pm

Typical conservative rhetoric about not taking responsibility for anything that came before, pastor.

Posted by ficheye at 03/24/2009 @ 3:08pm
Typical conservative rhetoric about not taking responsibility for anything that came before, pastor.

Posted by ficheye at 03/24/2009 @ 3:08pm

I stand by my statement. Millions died because of the leftists in this country who caused us to abandon South Vietnam.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 3:12pm
Cheney, Amway Founder Richard DeVos to Collaborate With the RZA on Hip Hop Album

Gangnews recently learned that former VP Dick Cheney, and Amway founder Richard DeVos, have been spending time in a Newark recording studio with legendary Wu-Tang Clan producer, the RZA.

Both Cheney and DeVos are wealthy Republicans and devotees of the "dominionist" faction of the religious right. The RZA is an adherent of the Five Percent Nation, a quasi-Islamic sect that believe that black men are gods.

Asked how these seemingly incongruous philosophies could mesh in the studio, Cheney told gangnews, "Word is bond, I was checkin my portfolio and I had this epiphany, yo. Ninjas like me and Richard, God puts us on this pedestal to exercise dominion, yo. We like the anthropomorphic envoys in this sh**. The poor righteous teachers of the deaf, dumb, and blind, god. Arm Leg Leg Arm Head. And I started thinking about the ODB, kid. Word is bond, we like gods, Lynn – that's my earth. The RZA, he a god, so I called Richard, and Richard called the RZA, and we all just started, you know, marinatin' some of this ish in our heads, and now we in the studio to manifest. Word is bond."

Posted by gangpapist at 03/24/2009 @ 3:13pm
My Lai-part of the treasonous efforts of the left to make sure we lost to the communists---Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 2:46pm

Lt. William Calley was a "leftist"??!?!?

Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 3:15pm
Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 2:58pm

Hey, SJCHER...what would happen to the economy if the rich were paying a 50% top mariginal rate....anything bad?

Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 3:19pm
Typical conservative rhetoric about not taking responsibility for anything that came before, pastor.

Posted by ficheye at 03/24/2009 @ 3:08pm

I stand by my statement. Millions died because of the leftists in this country who caused us to abandon South Vietnam.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 3:12pm

American servicemen, real heroes, stopped the massacre at My Lai. Were they radical leftists?

Posted by gangpapist at 03/24/2009 @ 3:21pm
antisocialist commented above:

".....I stand by my statement. Millions died because of the leftists in this country who caused us to abandon South Vietnam....."

My comment: It amazes me that the political left, who over and over again proclaim war to be wrong, NEVER EVER have questioned the communists for going back to war in Vietnam.

In 1973 there was a complete truce. The war was OVER.

At no point in time after that did any event occur that would even remotely give the communists an excuse for going back to war. We did nothing that they could claim as justification for doing so.

So why did they? Because they knew they could do it, and get away with it, that is why.

By any yardstick used to measure whether going to war is right or wrong, communists going back to war in Vietnam was wrong.

And this would include the leftist "yardsticks" that in any other case where America and war is involved seem to always find America to be wrong, no matter what.

Yet the leftist yardsticks never compute any communist wrong for going back to war after a complete and honorable truce and end to the war and no provocation by us afterwards.

Why the lib silence and hypocricy on this issue? Maybe people like Jane Fonda and John F. Kerry ought to be required to answer that question, since they are such a font of wisdom, as proclaimed by the left.

(Yes I know I have just committed swiftboating)

Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 3:25pm
Mask,

I am sure there is some idiotic ulterior motive to your question, you will point out some Republican or Conservative that has advocated that somewhere, God only knows why.

But the wealthy paying 50% in taxes? What the hell for?

Why do you want to take money out of productive use in the economy, and give it to the government, where it is put to non productive use?

Lower the amount of money available to develop and grow business, which employs people and provides opportunity? Why do you want to do that?

To give it to government, which does employ people but does not add any other productive factor to the economy, and which manages it resouces inefficiently when it does not waste them altogether?

Some tax money goes to national defense, and that is necessary and should not be cut back, and some goes to help people with no other support or abililty to ever get on their feet again.

And some goes to maintenance of basic infrastructure such as roads, bridges, police, fire and public safety.

But beyond that government wastes money like a sieve and does not contribute to economic growth.

Here is an article by Dr. Walter E. Williams from 2007 that is a good synopsis of the Government vs private enterprise argument. It is about heath care but in essence captures the whole fallacy of too much government involvement in our lives.

http://www.gmu.edu/ departments/economics/ wew/articles/07/health%20care.htm

Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 3:39pm
Word is bond." Posted by gangpapist at 03/24/2009 @ 3:13pm

A sickness next to godliness. Yo.

Posted by ficheye at 03/24/2009 @ 5:12pm
(Yes I know I have just committed swiftboating) Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 3:25pm

To operate a boat you have to have oars. And water.

Your (and anti's) proclamation about leftists having influence of any sort at My Lai is just nothing short of stupid. A stretch of heretofore unseen proportions. What did 'lefty' ever have to say in the Nam except 'bring our boys home'? Your struggle is futile. Your 'side' is slipping into the abyss. Don't forget to flush.

Then, of course, predictably, you bring up Jane Fonda. She was an idiot. A publicity stunt gone horribly wrong. But your tendencies to be prejudicial and to group everyone together under your freak flag are not to be denied. Lefty is going to get you, CHERMAK. He's going to steal your parking place.

I'd put you on ignore but it's too much fun to read the dark rantings of someone who is obviously in the grip of a bad case of ergot poisoning. Word up,'Mak.

Posted by ficheye at 03/24/2009 @ 5:26pm
Besides this is all an effort to derail the conversation away from 'The Dark Lord' Cheney.

I feel a story coming on, with chains and everything!!

There something that feels so right about putting Cheney in a leather outfit with a cat 'o nine tails at his disposal!!

Somehow I think that it appeals to you, as well, SJ!!!

And don't think 'word up' means that I agree with you. In this context it just means 'that's right!' Just in the bizarre and unthinkably unlikely case that you know any urban slang.

Posted by ficheye at 03/24/2009 @ 5:41pm
ficheye,

With your last 2 posts you have set a new standard for unadulterated B.S. that will be hard for even somebody like Phil McCrevice to achieve.

Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 5:54pm
Former VP Cheney is the greatest VP our country has ever had.

I am one who remains grateful for his service to our country in many roles, the last being VP.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 6:07pm
Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 3:39pm

Yeah, there's a trick...

What was the top marginal income tax rate when the "Reagan Recovery" began in 1983?

Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 8:10pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 6:07pm

You and 18% of the country, Larry.

Eighteen percent.

Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 8:11pm
Mask,

Not too good an idea for you to cite President Reagan or the subject of economics. You lose in an argument about that subject.

I have lost count of the number of times I have posted the article below on this website, in various threads.

Mask, read the article and educate yourself about "Reaganomics". Please, for your own sake.

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record

by William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore

http://www.cato.org/ pub_display.php?pub_id=1120

(link may contain spaces that need to be taken out)

Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 8:49pm
Former VP Cheney is the greatest VP our country has ever had. Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 6:07pm

Funny. That's just what Mark Levin said. Exactly.

Sorry, Pastor too many people besides myself do not think that. That is a consensus of opinion by a majority of the people. You're welcome to your opinion, but it's a lonely one that you and chermak share. Cheney was an out-of-the-closet sociopath.

You don't reflect the good natured attitude of any pastor that I've ever known. You also have too much time to blog for someone that is supposed to be doing the Lords work. That comment about My Lai is especially unfathomable in its cruel and bombastic generalization. time to reassess what you are doing here... seeking to help or seeking to hurt?

Posted by ficheye at 03/25/2009 @ 01:34am
a new standard for unadulterated B.S. that will be hard for even somebody like Phil McCrevice to achieve. Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 5:54pm

And since you are a high level intellect that has gained such respect here, and on other blogs as well CHERMAK, I take that as a compliment. For I have researched your opinionated ass, and found it wanting.

Most people who read your posts consider you to be - well - out of your mind. On occasion you whimper a little, like you would like to join the club of the sane, but then off you go again, ranting about 'those on the left'.

'They' are outside your door. 'They' have compromised your freedoms. 'They' are everywhere. In your cereal. In the shrubs. It's feeding time, CHERMAK. Remember to take those little blue pills. And stop eating the newspaper.

Posted by ficheye at 03/25/2009 @ 01:41am
Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 8:49pm

Still true....when the "Reagan Recovery" begin, top marginal rates were 50%. So, why didn't the economy stall????

BTW....read mine, it's stuff that Rush, Cato Institute, and Heritage wants you to forget-

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0301.green.html

Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 09:03am
Yep, that article is a keeper.

No wonder Obama refers to Raygun as transformative...

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/25/2009 @ 12:08pm
Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 8:49pm

This article completely ignores the fact that the growth came at a huge price. Economic growth happened which then saddled future generations with massive debt. Which meant that he increased productivity and growth by taking things away from future generations. He increased government debt by more than 16%. Who was going to pay for that? Sooner or later taxes were going to go back up. Which is why Reaganomics is not sustainable. It leads to short term gain but long term loss.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/25/2009 @ 12:37pm
Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 8:49pm

http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1544

Here is an article debunking many of the myths in that article SJ. I would recommend reading it.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/25/2009 @ 12:58pm
So Raygun gets airports and buildings named after him and the hsuB/cHeney admin will get at most a sewage plant, most likely latrines. And their gravesites will have to be a secret or heavily guarded.

Not enough.

Most likely a new and improved non-gestapo-ed DoJ (or an appointed special prosecutor) will hang these guys as soon as the koolaid drunken holdovers in Justice are dragged out.

As the economy improves, a little at a time, the focus on the hsuB/cHeney crimes will once again be that evil floating at the top to be dealt with.

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/25/2009 @ 1:21pm
CCC: Economic growth happened which then saddled future generations with massive debt.

HAPPY: But isn't Magic doing exactly the same thing, with even massivier debt?

CCC: He increased government debt by more than 16%.

HAPPY: But isn't Magic doing exactly the same thing, except he plans to increase Gubber debt by ~100%?

CCC: Who was going to pay for that?

HAPPY: You think Reagan didn't care, why shouldn't you think the same w/The One?

CCC: Sooner or later taxes were going to go back up.

HAPPY: Yep, glad it will be under Magic & the Democrats.

CCC: Which is why Reaganomics is not sustainable.

HAPPY: Is anything "sustainable"?

CCC: It leads to short term gain but long term loss.

HAPPY: Story of the Great Society in so far as the black folks are concerned.....but a long term gain for the Demo Party....they deserve all the credit and we Repubs had nothing to do with it....Bless be the Lord!

Posted by Happy at 03/25/2009 @ 1:29pm
Story of the Great Society in so far as the black folks are concerned.....but a long term gain for the Demo Party....they deserve all the credit and we Repubs had nothing to do with it....Bless be the Lord!

Posted by Happy at 03/25/2009 @ 1:29pm

I think Reagan was a Republican and his politics were the basis for all modern politics, Republican or Democrat. So yes Republicans are to blame. You can try to pawn it off on the Democrats but that's typical stupid partisanship instead of actual worthwhile analysis.

I have my problems with how Obama is choosing to deal with this situation. However, Reagan made the promise that he was going to lower taxes and balance the budget while in creasing productivity. On all accounts he failed or barely succeeded. At least Obama was honest enough to say that yes what he is doing is going to increase the deficit BUT once we are out of this he has plans to try to cut it in half as well. We will see if he holds up the second promise.

Reaganism and the Republican love of it is BS. Anyone who thinks the Republicans do a better job running this country and aren't to blame is a cultist. Both parties are to blame.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/25/2009 @ 2:06pm
Posted by Happy at 03/25/2009 @ 1:29pm

If that last part was humor then I apologize for the comment about stupidity. If the last part was not humor, then I take that apology back.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/25/2009 @ 2:08pm
CCC, read that article I posted above (Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 09:03am).

Even the RIGHT-WING MYTH of Reagan isn't true....he DID raise taxes, even corporate taxes.

Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 2:51pm
Even the RIGHT-WING MYTH of Reagan isn't true....he DID raise taxes, even corporate taxes.

Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 2:51pm

The article I showed addresses that too. Reaganism was BS. He didn't hold any of his promises. While the growth was higher during Reagan times than Carter, it was only SLIGHTLY higher. And taxes accross the board were actually slightly raised through something the author caused bracket creep created by inflation caused by Reagan's economic policies. Only the top tier were really paying less and even then not by the 30% he claimed to decrease taxes but, but by about 10%.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/25/2009 @ 4:09pm
Cccomfo1,

The opening of your article indicates it was written in late 1987. (It was posted on the website your link took me to in 2004... but the article was written in 1987).

The article I referenced was written in 2006.

Since a lot of economic statistics and results take time to compile and be analyzed, how can an article in 1987 be a fair assessment of President Reagan's economic results when his term in office didn't even end until January 1989?

And how can an article in 1987 debunk things in an article in 2006, 19 years later and at a point where there is economic information on the long term effects of policy in the 80's?

My article indicated that the deficit increase in the 80's can not be blamed on tax cuts, but were due to unexpected reduction in inflation (leading to increase government spending) and the military build-up that ended the cold war.

Thus, Reaganomics and the benefits of a supply-side tax cut have not been disproven.

Of course, the military build-up in the 80's (which defeated the Soviet Union) is viewed by me as necessary and the right policy (and it worked), but I do know that many on The Nation blogs have other opinions about that, which have been argued many times on this site.

Separate from Reaganomics, I realize that government spending is not curtailed even when Republicans are President - it even goes up then.

Strict conservatives are not any more happy about that when a Republican does it than when a Democrat does it - in fact they get madder yet, because they expect Democrats will increase spending but expect Republicans would not and should not.

Posted by sjchermak at 03/25/2009 @ 4:41pm
Posted by sjchermak at 03/25/2009 @ 4:41pm

There is something some people like to call facts on the ground. Usually a war term. It means that there are facts that can be seen in the situation as opposed to outside of it. Those facts are still relevant no matter when they were posted. His points are still completely valid.

"My article indicated that the deficit increase in the 80's can not be blamed on tax cuts, but were due to unexpected reduction in inflation (leading to increase government spending) and the military build-up that ended the cold war. "

But the inflation was due to Reagonomics also. That was the point of the article. You can't seperate inflation from the governments economic policies because inflation is apart of the governments economic policies. That is why all this adjustment for inflation doesn't necessarily work when you are talking about government economic policy and that is the authors point. The author basically said that everything Reagan promised he failed to do or barely skirted by. He decreased taxes on all brackets, however because of inflation caused by his administrations economic plans he increased everyone's bracket which caused them to end up paying more in taxes. The percent growth in the end was barely 1% higher that Carter.

He spent more money and racked up deficits that were a record for the time. This article is not invalid because of WHEN it was posted. It's still just as valid today as it was then.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/25/2009 @ 6:01pm
Cccomfo1,

I think you interpreted my statement backwards.

I said the deficit increase in the 1980's was due to LOWER than expected inflation.

The actual inflation in that period was much lower than what government spending had been projected on and this caused increased real government spending - and that was part of the cause of the deficit - not tax cuts, which the political left blames for deficits.

You made reference above about inflation increase caused by the Reagan economic plans.

Inflation decreased and that is part of the explanation (not a cause blamed on Reaganomics) for part of the deficit.

Posted by sjchermak at 03/25/2009 @ 6:19pm
I think the author is as delirious as he thinks Dick Cheney is.

I guess it was OK for Slick Willy to pontificate on W performance all day long.

I am going to puke.

Posted by apoorspic at 03/25/2009 @ 11:38pm
I think the author is as delirious as he thinks Dick Cheney is.

I guess it was OK for Slick Willy to pontificate on W performance all day long.

I am going to puke.

Posted by apoorspic at 03/25/2009 @ 11:38pm
I am going to puke. Posted by apoorspic at 03/25/2009 @ 11:38pm

It must be something you ate.

Posted by ficheye at 03/25/2009 @ 11:57pm
I think you interpreted my statement backwards.

I said the deficit increase in the 1980's was due to LOWER than expected inflation.

The actual inflation in that period was much lower than what government spending had been projected on and this caused increased real government spending - and that was part of the cause of the deficit - not tax cuts, which the political left blames for deficits.

You made reference above about inflation increase caused by the Reagan economic plans.

Inflation decreased and that is part of the explanation (not a cause blamed on Reaganomics) for part of the deficit.

Posted by sjchermak at 03/25/2009 @ 6:19pm

Even if they had adjusted down they still would have ended up massicely over budget. Inflation wouldn't have kept up with how fast he was spending money. My point about inflation was not about how fast he was spending money it was about the tax cuts. The inflation caused what is known as bracket creep. Which means he didn't cut taxes to most of the population. Most people suffered increased taxes Except the upper group. The biggest tax cut was 10% not 40% as you guys love to claim because of the bracket creep.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/26/2009 @ 11:06am
Nixon on Reagan:

Nixon & Kissinger on Reagan: "His brains are negligible" 19 November 2007 in History, Politics by Stilgherrian | No comments Richard Nixon's White House tapes continue to amuse. Here's an exchange between him and then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

President Nixon: What's your evaluation of Reagan after meeting him several times now?

Kissinger: Well, I think he's a… actually I think he's a pretty decent guy.

President Nixon: Oh, decent, no question, but his brains...

Kissinger: Well, his brains, are negligible. I…

President Nixon: He's really pretty shallow, Henry.

Kissinger: He's shallow. He's got no… he's an actor. He… When he gets a line he does it very well. He said, "Hell, people are remembered not for what they do, but for what they say. Can't you find a few good lines?" [Chuckles.] That's really an actor's approach to foreign policy.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/26/2009 @ 12:20pm
(My logic may contain spaces that need to be taken out) Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 8:49pm

We'll use a nut pick.

Posted by ficheye at 03/26/2009 @ 4:31pm