[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 75°F  
High: 100°F ~ Low: 63°F
Saturday, July 26, 2014

Return of the Cheneys

Posted Sunday, February 14, 2010, at 5:33 PM

Well good old former Vice President Dick Cheney came out of his undisclosed location to once again scare as many people as he could. The question I have about Cheney is anything he says even viable anymore?

We've seen that he has no issues rewriting history any way that he sees fit. We also know that he, like today's Republicans, oppose civilian trials for terrorists, which was always in stark contrast to his boss former President Bush who had Richard Reid tried in a civilian court.

He has said on many occasions that Obama is not taking the terrorist threat serious enough. But that's the face of the extreme right now-a-days; for them if you aren't constantly in a state a fear about the next terrorist attack then you don't take the threat seriously. It does make one wonder how people that are constantly thinking about the next attack coming down the pike sleep at night. People should be vigilant about terrorism, that's not what I'm saying, but being constantly afraid, always looking around the next corner expecting a terror attack really is a waste of life no matter how you slice it.

But he went for the extreme right home run today declaring that Obama was already at fault for a terrorist attack that hasn't happened yet and if our history serves to show won't happen for a really long time, if at all. Naturally he is also still trying to get that nuclear cloud somewhere over America that he has been promising for over eight years and claiming that al Queda is trying to get a nuclear weapon. He has no proof that they are but of course that doesn't stop him from saying it.

Naturally, not to be outdone by dear old daddy, Liz Cheney went on Fox News and didn't just rewrite history but just made it completely up. She actually declared that because we tried the terrorists responsible for the '93 attack on the twin towers in civil court that it led directly to the attacks on 9/11. There's no way she can prove that this actually happened, but just like daddy, she doesn't really care. She made it up and because she says its true she won't be challenged by anyone about it. But what she failed to take account of or just completely ignored (which in my opinion she ignored because it hurts her claim)that most of the terrorists convicted under the Bush Administration were convicted in civil trials, not military tribunals. That fact is something Republicans and the extreme right wish would just go away because it hurts their cause, so they simply ignored that those trials actually happened and expect us to ignore it as well. Of course that's just the far right's attempt to shield all blame away from Bush and put it squarely on Clinton's shoulders. But that's the far right for you.

Stay classy.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Mike,

Here you go getting this flaming liberal cranky ol' man after you.

You find me a Mid-East scholar, researcher, field officer or newsman of recognized stature who does not believe absolutely that Al Qaeda's goal is control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Bi Laden had nuclear warheads on trucks headed for the Himalayas before they were stopped with U.S./Russian cooperation.

He is well aware the sitting Pakistan government has people within it who will sell him some of their NUKES.

I think less of Shotgun Cheney than you.

I strongly wish Pres. Obama had not insisted on going forward and not devoting time and energy to considering past mistakes.

No reasonable person would claim for a moment that Cheney was not directly involved in handing Halliburton and KBR all those no-bid, sweetheart contracts, which did not actually require results at New Orleans -- and allowed sloppy work and food service in Iraq and Kuwait.

As for all of Shotgun's BS, it is the old Hermann Goebels strategy -- THROW AS MUCH OF IT ON THE WALL, SEE WHAT STICKS AND GO BACK TO THAT BULL FOR MORE. Only it appears, he is shoveling his from behind the elephants.

By the way, I kind of ignore Shotgun -- which daughter is this? Is this the Lesbian Homosexual daughter of the extreme neo-con who does not want homosexuals on his planet, certainly not in his country, absolutely not in Wyoming -- but his family -- that's O.K.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Feb 15, 2010, at 6:12 PM

Liz is the straight daughter. I've always found it interesting that one of his daughters is a lesbian and yet he opposed rights for homosexuals.

One tidbit I forgot to mention and it should delight several posters on here but Cheney said on television that he absolutely supports waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques(torture). I always knew that there was at least one war criminal in the White House and I always suspected it was him and yesterday he admitted to it. Since conservatives continue telling us that we are in a war right now, torturing enemy combatants during a time of war is not only against the Geneva Convention but illegal in the United States. Betcha he won't be arrested.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Feb 15, 2010, at 9:46 PM

Mike,

How did Cheney's continued support for "enhanced interrogation techniques" translate into an admission of war crimes? Or did I miss the point when he said he believed it to be torture? Just because you say it is doesn't make it so. I'm also almost as sure as I can be that he won't be arrested.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Feb 16, 2010, at 1:56 PM

Hey Trannie,

It don't matter a hoot in a high wind what Mike thinks about war crimes.

There has never been a secret that Cheney was giving orders in the Middle East operations -- to the military and the CIA.

Which is why when Gates became Sec. of Defense, Cheney got banned from the Pentagon.

International law says waterboarding is criminal.

Law -- maybe you have heard of that quaint idea.

And yeah, watching Shotgun Cheney in two sessiona Sunday -- He admitted waterboarding is legally torture under International and U.S. Law.

But then, so is illegal wiretapping -- which the

FBI has admitted to under DDD orders.

So was the stuff that went on in the "Abu Grab" prison.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Tue, Feb 16, 2010, at 3:32 PM

Enhanced interrogation techniques is torture. Waterboarding is torture. Changing the name of torture to something that doesn't have the negative connotation doesn't change what it is.

But I understand the overall point, if they do it to us it's torture and they should be held accountable. If we do it to them but change the name of it it's perfectly acceptable.

The bottom line is that he supported the administration's use of torture. He knew that it was going on and did nothing to stop it and therefor it is a war crime.

We held Nazi soldiers to the same standard for what happened during the Holocaust. If they knew it was going on and did nothing to stop it they were tried as war criminals.

But again I understand the American double standard, I just don't accept it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Feb 16, 2010, at 3:36 PM

Let's assume Dick Cheney is a war criminal. What was his motive?

The Nazi's goal was to exterminate the Jews. They killed them.

Dick Cheney's goal was to keep you safe.

The degree of the charges are a little different.

However, if he broke the law than the Attorney General of the United States should do something.

What is the status of the investigation?

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Feb 17, 2010, at 6:28 AM

There aren't degrees to being a criminal.

I don't care what his motives are he supported torturing prisoners in my name and he should be held accountable for it.

He won't be held accountable, because for some reason we have a country that has disposed of our morals to accept torture in order "to keep us safe".

Of course there is no evidence that torturing kept anyone safe. There is evidence that torturing gave us no good evidence.

Everyone that we have captured and every supposed attempt at terrorism we have stopped was discovered through good old American interrogation. You know, make them seem like you are their friend or falsely show them respect and they talk.

The facts are there, those that are tortured will give out any information that the torturer wants to hear to make the torture stop and that information is typically not good information.

I'm sorry but I don't buy into the idea of allowing torture because our leader's goals are to "keep you safe".

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Feb 17, 2010, at 7:01 AM

Those being subjected to enhanced methods WILL NOT give out bad information if after the bad info is given it is verified as bad by the agents and subsequent interrogation is given after the interrogatee is told WHY the interview will continue. You would never make it in the CIA mini-mike.

-- Posted by hankherndon on Wed, Feb 17, 2010, at 8:58 AM

Mike - I need to restate my question:

Why is the Unites States Attorney General not investigating?

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Feb 17, 2010, at 10:14 AM

So I guess you just spit in the face of facts there don't you hank.

I couldn't tell you why the Attorney General is not investigating

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Feb 17, 2010, at 5:11 PM

Hey Wallis,

Cheney's motives other than patriotic.

Well now let us see -- as the former top dawg at Halliburton and KBR, with both of those outfits enjoying eight years of unfettered access to NO-BID, Sweetheart U.S. Government contracts -- Corps of Engineers, FEMA, etc. for Katrina relief, and CIA, DOD, the Iraqi government, Kuwait government, etc. in that region -- with Billions in No-Bid contracts with constantly inferior results and undoubtedly a TRILLION or TWO, or ?? from their shotgun wedding with the Iraqi government -- Gee whiz, what could ol' Shotgun Cheney's motive be?

Certainly not at least a small share of the Billions and Trillions -- or could it be a larger share?

People keep wondering why the Wyoming nutcase keeps ripping and snorting about everything.

Could it be he hopes if he keeps raising HELL about every thing he can invent, he won't get investigated for fraud, corruption and raiding the federal treasury?

We know Army Auditors have declared KBR filed more than $100-Million in fraudulent billings.

What is 1% of $100-Million?

Now kick that up to more than $1-Billion paid out to Halliburton and KBR for Katrina.

What's 1%?

Then get through the next ten years in Iraq's Oil Patch, plus all the open ended contracts through 2009 -- Say it ONLY TOTALS $1-TRILLION.

What's 1% of that?

Impossible? -- How much Halliburton and KBR stock does old Shotgun and his family have? How much did he put into a blind trust while in office?

Don't suppose he might have 10% of those two outfits in his hip pocket, do you?

Golly, gee whiz -- Wally Marsh -- What could his motivation be?

No question, Ol' Shotgun was bosum buddies with all of the Enron crowd, arranging VIP credentials for the White House and Executive Office Building.

That's sort of an open secret in D.C.

Kind of difficult for him to deny the Halliburton/KBR connection prior to joining DubYah on the GOP ticket.

Jes a couple of ol' oil patch buddies seein' what they could do.

Motivation -- Wallis, with your Houston address -- What could you possibly need?

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Wed, Feb 17, 2010, at 7:35 PM

Actually Wallis,

Some of us have been considering the matter of legitimate criminal charges against Shotgun.

For one, the present administration is totally focused on the big stuff right now.

Economic turnaround, WINNING the Afghan conflict, protecting the Pakistan nuclear arsenal, Health Care Reform, jobs, -- you know that sort of minor detail thing.

There is no statute of limitations protecting Shotgun and the Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater cronies.

As near total lunacy as the Neo-Cons are now, it would be plumb interesting to consider their outrage and screams if the AG announced next week that more than a year's investigation was resulting in Federal Felony charges against Shotgun and his buddies.

Again, there is no statute of limits to expire on this kind of stuff -- Better the present administration concentrate on the big stuff and ignore Shotgun.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Wed, Feb 17, 2010, at 7:43 PM

Herndon - If the Vice President of the United States of America is a War Criminal I would consider that big stuff.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Feb 17, 2010, at 7:51 PM

I actually think that Cheney sold all of his Halliburton stock years ago.

However - when he went into office the stock was $26/share and today it is $31. The stock has not performed very well over the last 10 years. So the contracts haven't made shareholders wealthy.

Halliburton did drop a lot in 2003 due to the recession and the Asbestos issues they were dealing with. I bought a lot of the stock at that time but the Iraq business was never enough to move the stock.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Feb 17, 2010, at 8:29 PM

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickch...

http://dshort.com/charts/bear-recoveries...

The two links are Halliburton's stock price and the bear market of 2000-2002.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Feb 17, 2010, at 8:32 PM

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=HAL&annu...

Here is a listing of Halliburton's revenue. Not a Trillion here. Actually, with their margins what they are a Billion dollar contract isn't going to move their stock price that much either.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Feb 17, 2010, at 8:43 PM

Study the income statement closely and you will see that Halliburton actually paid over a Billion dollars in income taxes.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Feb 17, 2010, at 8:45 PM

I misspoke when I stated there were no degrees to being a criminal and I retract that statement.

We know there was torture. We waterboarded and I know all you guys think that anyone who thinks that someone can get suffer bodily harm while being waterboarded are fools all you need to do is look at the facts, a hard thing to do I know, that waterboarding is simulated drowning, a towel is shoved down your throat and water poured on it.

But then again I forget that there is this segment of the population that continually talks about morals yet they have no issues what-so-ever shoving their morals aside to allow torture just so they can "feel safe".

Then there are those who are just in total denial about the whole thing, sticking their fingers in their ears and humming loudly so they don't have to hear the nasty truth.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 18, 2010, at 6:08 AM

The truth about what the terrorists want to do to us????? The truth about how far liberals will go to assist the terrorists?????

-- Posted by hankherndon on Thu, Feb 18, 2010, at 8:35 AM

Ah yes, I remember the strings of question marks. How's it going, Joe? It's obvious.

Earlier it was brought up the difference between the Nazis motive of exterminating Jews and Cheney's motive of "keeping us safe." Isn't that a bit far fetched?

-- Posted by Jaded American on Thu, Feb 18, 2010, at 9:41 AM

Not far fetched at all. Both results oriented and both highly effective. I knew a guy named Joe once.

-- Posted by hankherndon on Thu, Feb 18, 2010, at 9:51 AM

Ah always the last refuge when you don't have a point to make, blame all the liberals for wanting to assist terrorists. You could have probably used a few exclamation points in there as well, it would have driven your point home a little harder.

And the way you tried to completely change the course of the conversation from torture to fear mongering about the what the terrorists want to do to us.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 18, 2010, at 1:14 PM

Sorry hank I forgot to answer your question. The truth I am referring to is that enhanced interrogation techniques is nicer term for torture but it is still illegal and immoral.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 18, 2010, at 2:39 PM

I personally like "torture" when it comes to Radical Islamic Terrorists. All the liberals DO want to assist the terrorists. Don't you watch the news??

-- Posted by hankherndon on Thu, Feb 18, 2010, at 3:10 PM

Gee Whiz,Wallis -- Glad someone believes in the tooth fairy.

Everyone who actually BELIEVES the annual reports and stock prospectus of publicly traded companies dealing internationally -- truly reflect actual profits -- please stand up and sing all verses of "Streets of Laredo."

Public corporation does business under a cost-plus contract in a war zone. Contracts all employees through a personnel agency headquartered in Zurich.

Said Agency Corporation just happens to held within a trust,with only the legal counsel listed. Said Agency hires workers from Singapore, the Phillipines, Egypt, Malaysia, Thailand, Myramar, Viet Nam and Korea -- at $2.00 per day, plus room and board.

Prime contractor pays agency $50 hourly for those same workers. Guess where the serious profit goes?

Couldn't happen.

Happens every day in corporate business operations world wide.

Publicly held Supermarket Chain buys all produce through a Terre Haute, Indiana produce brokerage.

Broker pays California lettuce shipper, an average of $3.50 per box of 24 iceberg lettuce heads and delivers to the Supermarket Chain distribution center, on the dock at $28.50 per box. The DC ships via trucks owned by another independent corporation, just happens to charge and get $2.50 per mile. for about $1.65 per mile extra profit.

Grocery division reports a 1% return on each dollar in sales. Stockholders of the publicly traded corporation enjoy a steady, if small dividend.

Meanwhile, very much "non-public" owners of the brokerage and "branded" transportation contractor, and other major vendors and contractors, extract 150% to 1500% return on investment annually.

That produce brokerage is the dream sideline -- the corporate grocery chain guarantees payment -- grower/shippers allow a 25 day "float" on payments, starting 24 hours after delivery is receipted.

The chain wires payment to the brokerages immediately upon receipt and inspection.

Most shippers send multiple loads daily. The brokerage is paid by electronic transfer within four hours of delivery to the chain warehouse.

The brokerage is paid by the publicly held corporation within four hours of delivery.

This means, the brokerage has almost 26 days of no cost, high-profit money.

Welcome to the real corporate world.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Thu, Feb 18, 2010, at 6:00 PM

Yes hank I do watch the news and I've never seen an report or any liberal saying that they wanted to assist the terrorists. But then again when you say news I'm sure you are probably referring to Fox "News", you know the we report, we decide for you network that pretends to report news but really just makes up crap.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, at 12:27 PM

You forgot to mention you once owned or knew the owner of the brokerage, didn't you hank?

-- Posted by hankherndon on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, at 1:17 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

Elections Matter
(13 ~ 3:31 PM, Dec 22)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)

Keep Them Close
(6 ~ 1:08 PM, Oct 17)

I .... Disagree
(10 ~ 11:33 PM, Sep 30)