When the libs are doing story after story on how wrong you are and how creepy you are and how stupid you are etc. You know you've struck a nerve. This is the case with Dick Cheney. Part of the problem with these fools is that they feel safe. Why do they feel safe? Because George W Bush and Dick Cheney took care of them, protected them, sheilded them from terror. Because the Bush administration had the balls to take the fight to the enemy and win.
The problem with the libs in the media is that they're smart enough to know that this is true, but can't stand to admit it. It's driving them absolutely batshit crazy KNOWING that Bush and Cheney have protected them for all this time and more importantly, Cheney won't let them forget it. So now we get this jackass (no offense donk) Andrew Cohen of CBS. You can read the whole thing HERE, but the relevant part to me is the question he asks and answers himself which i have reprinted below.
Hey Cohen, instead of calling him a Dick, why don't you just say thank you and be on your way.
How do we account for Cheney’s failure or refusal to acknowledge all that we have learned about the world since 2002? How do we explain the worldview he continues to share with his camp followers both in and out of power? Do we chalk it up to him being a stubborn, venal, self-righteous man incapable of admitting his own mistakes? Is he truly what Andrew Sullivan calls a “dead-ender?” Do we hang it on his ideology? On his Western individualism that eschews the need for consensus and compromise? Or is he, as many people say, just a dick. I hereby choose the following explanation. Cheney’s world today is still the world of September 11, 2001, a world where hijacked planes are screaming toward their targets, chaos reigns, and anything goes. It’s a world where civil liberties are endangered, laws are overlooked, and the enemy, for all we know, is truly at the gate. Cheney simply hasn’t moved beyond that mode into the realm of the present. That’s why he cannot accept that the decisions he and others made in the long shadows of that day—water-boarding, indefinite detention, Gitmo, and so on— were short-sighted and even, in some cases, counter-productive
8 comments:
Cheney/Bush kept us safe. Except, of course, for the biggest terrorist attack in US history which happened on their watch, despite the fact that the system was "blinking red" as Tenet put it, "Bin Laden determined to attack US." Oh, and the still unsolved anthrax attacks.
I wonder, if 4 or 8 years from now there has not been another terrorist attack, will you give Obama credit for "keeping us safe?"
No wonder you like Cheney; you're both assholes. I had to say it.
well, i don't know why you think Cheney is an asshole,but yes i will give Obama some of the credit if he is successful in keeping us safe.
Clearly Bush and Cheney did the heavy lifting but there's work still to be done.
As to the blame for 9/11 i'm fine with you blaming Bush/Cheney,(i don't) but you can't have it both ways. If they got caught with their pants down on 9/11 then everything they did thereafter was necessary to keep us safe afterwards.
My thinking is that if we are to blame any administration for 9/1 it was the previous administration that literally didn't do ANYTHING after the first attack on the trade center, the embassy bombings, and the uss cole who emboldened the enemy and allowed them to flourish. I don't think Clinton did enough to keep us safe, but i don't think anyone could have imagined 9/11 so i'm not crushing anyone for that except the perpetrators.
I wouldn't go so far as to blame Bush for 911 and there's no way of knowing if a Gore administration would have stopped it.
Let me correct you on one point. It is not fair to say that Clinton did nothing about the trade center bombing, considering that his administration arrested and convicted the people responsible. Unfortunatly the culprits for 9/11 are still at large.
Actually the culprits for 9/11 are dead, and the mastermind was captured and waterboarded. But you want to cry for him and give him constitutional rights.
Correct me? I don't think so.
The highjackers are dead, obviously. Osama bin Ladin is still alive, as far as we know, and other top al Qaeda people. As for torturing KSM, the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment applies to "all persons." Also the KSM and Zubaida cases pretty much prove that conventional FBI-style interrogation works better than "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" aka torture.
Once again. The culprits are dead. The masterminds behind the attack have been captured. Osama? Who knows maybe dead, maybe not. What we DO know is that there have been no more attacks. If you tell me that on 9/12 you believed we would not be attacked again for the next 8 years i'm telling you you're a liar.
The president is playing politics with the whole torture bullshit. What were the results of the waterboarding? How many lives have been saved by putting a catepillar in someones cell? You don't know what's been proved or not proved. You actually don't know shit and since you have your blinders on as usual you just believe what you want to believe. That's cool by me, but that's why i always say you're stupid. Smart people have an open mind.
I'm willing to state that I don't know shit if you'll admit the same. There is no evidence that torture saved lives but I am open to considering that possibility if any evidence for it is produced. That's having an open mind.
I do not believe torture is effective. So far the evidence suggests that other methods were more effective, and the torture produced more bad information than good. While I am willing to reconsider that belief on new evidence, my primary opposition to torture is on moral and legal grounds. If that's stupid, I don't want to be smart.
I would admit to it if it was true. However it is not. I DO know that we have been safe for the last 8 years even though our enemies want to hurt us. I DO know that whatever the Bush administration did worked. I have FACTS on my side. I also know that Cheney called out Obama very clearly and very openly when he said that the president wants people to know the means of acquiring the intelligence but not the results.(obviously not his exact words, but you get the drift)
This president would dive head first into that pool if it would prove his point on the enhanced interrogation techniques but he hasn't. What does that tell you gary? You listen to the words, but i don't believe the words of politicians. I look at their actions to tell me the truth. Waterboarding saved many lives, i'm sure of it. I haven't seen the memo's, but Obama has and he's not releasing them.
Now just say thank you for this lesson and move on to the benny mardones post.
Post a Comment