14 Feb

Dick Cheney on ABC’s “This Week”

[DELETED BY AUTHOR]

       submit to reddit
This entry was posted in American Intelligence, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, The Iraqi War, Uncategorized, War On Terror. Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, February 14th, 2010 at 11:09 am
| 232 views

10 Responses to Dick Cheney on ABC’s “This Week”

  1. MR CHENEY you said it right the world is always watching AMERICA and as a SUPER POWER the next president has to show he can handle every part of his POWER.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. @ilovebeeswarzone: The problem with Obama is that he doesn’t want American to be a “superpower.” People like him think the U.N. should be in charge.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. AdrianS says: 3

    Are we missing George W. Bush and Dick Cheney yet? Yes. I am. For most of us, me, the past few months have been an eye opener as far as realizing the danger that radical Islamic-Muslim terrorist pose to our way of life. They are scattered throughout the world in small vermin nests.

    George W. knew and realized that we must continue the war against radicals whose way of life, and following radical or extreme Islam, offers no mercy, no tolerance for other faiths or beliefs. They just as soon kill their own with suicide bombers for publicity and effect rather than fight in military ways. After years of suicide bombings, their method of madness no longer produces anything but condemnation from their own people.

    I admire Dick Cheney and his staunch stand on the issues regarding our war against terrorism in the world today and in the future.

    God bless our military and that of other countries and NATO fighting to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq; and bring peace and democracy (tolerance) to that part of the world — while killing and removing the radical Muslim-Islamic extremists.

    As for Biden saying that the Iraq war is somehow an Obama success, besides being anything but the truth, we’re not children and it doesn’t matter who gets the credit for the successes in Iraq. What is most definitely and patently obvious is that Obama and Biden are NOT leaders; they are followers — with no experience and very little guidance to offer.

    I have often said: Barack Hussein Obama is America’s first BLANK president.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. hi MIKE you said the UN it might be personal but i do not like ban ki moon of the un after what they did to that british man i think his name was GAINSBOURG [not sure exactly] he had some top job in Afganistan for UN and he report of the election being fraud and the UN top guy tryed to silence him and he kind of was force to resign because he was telling a truth they did not want to hear,bye

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. AdrianS says: 5

    “Biden: Cheney is misinformed or misleading.” – Headline from MSNBC.

    “Biden: Cheney trying to rewrite history.” – Also Headline from MSNBC (to same report).
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35393664/ns/politics/

    THIS HAS GOT TO BE THE SLICKEST, TRICKIEST STRATEGY FOR OBAMA/BIDEN TO DATE.

    Biden lies about who is entitled to credit for the successes, so far, in Iraq. Remember, both Biden and Obama have been adamant opposition to George W. Bush’s Iraq policy and the surge that ultimately led to more democracy and calm in Iraq.

    Now Biden is “tactfully,” but unbelievably, attacking Cheney for some kind of “misinformation”. It’s tricky, but it won’t work. Biden has been told to do the unthinkable — call Cheney misinformed; it is Biden who is trying to rewrite history. But then again who cares about what Biden says. No one ever has. During the Democratic primaries, Biden pulled in a whopping 1% of the vote. Almost nobody cares about Biden. Biden has only an iota of brains.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. stodghie says: 6

    biden, subtle??? he opens mouth and inserts foot. there is nothing slick in my humble view about biden and obama. thank goodness! their idiocy will make it that much easier to defeat them in 2012.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. @AdrianS: Those MSNBC headlines are another excellent example of media bias. Instead of laughing at Biden’s false claim they give him a headline.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. BRob says: 8

    Cheney is an idiot. First, I seem to recall him and other GOPers saying “Obama does not use the word ‘terror’ or think we are at war.” Let’s ask the terrorists Masud family in Pakistan whether they think Obama is serious about terror.

    I just asked them but got no response . . . because they are all dead.

    There is so much silliness on the right now. But when you look at the facts, the criticism makes no sense at all.

    Obama administration Mirandizes and prosecutes undie-bomber: cons scream “Bad, bad! Soft on terror!”

    Bush administration Mirandizes and prosecutes shoe bomber: silence.

    Bush says Gitmo should be closed. Silence.

    Obama says Gitmo should be closed. Cons scream “Holy hell, why does Obama love the terrorists and hate America?”

    Muslim terrorists prosecuted by Bush administration are all represented by lawyers who represent them to the best of their ability. Silence.

    Muslim terrorists set for prosecution by Obama will be represented by lawyers who will represent them to the best of their ability. Cons react with outrage and contempt and their heads explode.

    Cheney is trying to change history. But the fact is, the Bush administration handled these things in the EXACT SAME WAY that Obama is now; they just never got any criticism from the wingnuts. But to distinguish himself, Cheney now goes so far in one interview to claim that he did not agree with what his OWN FRIGGIN ADMINISTRATION did with terrorists! Talk about a latter day conversion!

    Conservatives were silent or supportive when the Bush administration did the exact same thing that Obama is doing now. They tried Moussoui in Northern Virginia and Richard Reed in Miami. I do not recall GOPers whining like little babies when those prosecutions occurred. So why the whimpering now?

    I have yet to see a single con offer a rational explanation as to why they oppose prosecuting the undie-bomber in federal court, but did not oppose the shoe bomber in federal court. Newt Gingrich went to far as to say, ignorantly or falsely, that the shoe bomber was a citizen so the federal prosecution was justified. Just false. No, cons, there is no good reason NOT to treat the undie bomber the same was Farris, Moussoiu and the shoe bomber were treated. But you only oppose it and call it “weakness” because Obama is doing it, not a GOPer. Such mendacious silliness on the right . . . .

    One last thing: in 2007, during a Dem debate, Obama said he would pursue al Qaeda in to Pakistan. He is now doing exactly what he said then. He also said recently that Americans who wage war against this country from abroad are fair game. I guess it is only a matter of time before cons start to oppose that, too. After all, if Obama is for it, now matter how much sense it makes, the GOPers obviously have to oppose. Idiots . . . .

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  9. Pingback: Zubaydah Thanked His Interrogators for Waterboarding Him

  10. Missy says: 9

    @BRob:

    Saving Aqua, John S and Disturber from having to repeat themselves.

    Look what Aqua wrote for you in the Boob Biden thread:

    @ BRob

    Aren’t you supposed to be a lawyer? I’m not, but I’ll see if I can splain it. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supremes tossed out Military Tribunals as they stood. So, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in 2006. Lindh was tried in 2002, prior to the Military Commissions Act. Reed pled guilt in 2002, prior to the Military Commissions Act. Moussaoui, tried in 2002. Lackawanna Seven strike a plea deal in 2003. Fort Dix 5, you got me. Looks like it started in 2008. But first, they would have had to have been classified as enemy combatants. That may be why they were tried in federal court.

    As for getting a lawyer in the military. You get it when the military is ready to give you one. There are all kinds of hearings before you get a lawyer. Since Scott Brown is one of the leading military defense attorneys, I’ll side with him over Biden.

    John S writes:

    It’s a valid point that is lost on a lot of reporting, that military tribunals do in fact involve attorneys for defendants. And that these lawyers are also “on the taxpayer’s dime.” (Or dollar, more aptly, adjusting for inflation.)

    But, obviously Biden is trying to mislead people into thinking it’s equivalent to lawyers in a civilian setting, while taking a shot at Scott Brown.

    Maybe they *are* worried Brown will challenge Obama in 2012.

    Disturber writes:

    There is a considerable ecoomic difference between the appointment of a military attorney as defense counsel before a military tribunal and the appointment of wall street fomer partners of Eric Holder as defense counsel in a civil trial. In the former, the attorneys (and Scott Brown is one of them) are on the military payroll and are doing their job. In the latter, the attorneys are billing the government at $650 per hour or thereabouts and running up bills at a pace that would make your knee jerk reactions seem slow. That is precisely what Scott Brown meant by that comment during the campaign and any attorney reasonably informed about the legal system and how it operates would know and understand that difference.

    Biden is a loose cannon who spouts off whatever comes to his alcohol addeled mind without giving any thought to what in fact he is saying. This is still another example of his ignorance. Perhaps he should have spent more time watching television with Herbert Hoover.

    http://www.floppingaces.net/2010/02/15/boob-biden-bashes-brown/#comment-267808

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>