February 18, 2010

"I think 2010 is going to be a phenomenal year for the conservative cause."

"And I think that Barack Obama is a one-term president."

Cheney at CPAC.

90 comments:

Comrade X said...

2010 is probably correct. too early for the other prediction. did anyone see where we'd be today a year ago? we can hope but things can change fast

TMink said...

I think he is right.

I hope he is right.

Trey

Will said...

Cheney hasn't been right about anything since he was Sec of Def under Bush 1. Heartens a liberal to hear him sound off like this.

garage mahal said...

Coming from the same guy that was so universally hated he had to send in a video instead of appearing at the last GOP convention? Haha. Thanks Dick, we'll take it from here.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Haha. Thanks Dick, we'll take it from here.

LOL! Yeah and a bang up job ya'll are doing too.

MadisonMan said...

I think this may fall under the category heading Tell your audience what they want to hear. How many people go before the CPAC and say things are going south for them?

Has Cheney a history of correct predictions?

traditionalguy said...

The rational and courageous Cheney has been the Conservatives best trial lawyer...that is their gladiator who ignores everything except to win the case for his client. Why else would visionary Progressives bother to hate a person.

John Lynch said...

I'm fine with "the conservative cause" if it can deliver.

I'd be fine with "the progressive cause" if it had delivered.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I think this may fall under the category heading Tell your audience what they want to hear.

Yeah. Kind of like saying 'the stimulus worked!'

madawaskan said...

Obama has a war chest the size of the Titanic...

Incumbency-is a huge factor and when you are CEO of General Motors and Banker in Chief, your palms- they're going to get greasy.

former law student said...

I think this may fall under the category heading Tell your audience what they want to hear.

“I would hope that a wise old conservative with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a liberal who hasn’t lived that life,”

garage mahal said...

LOL! Yeah and a bang up job ya'll are doing too.

Yea Obama is ruining all that work Cheney put in isn't he. Two unfinished wars and the house blazing on fire. I seriously wonder what the hell Cheney is talking about. And why did he get a standing ovation?

Florida said...

"Obama has a war chest the size of the Titanic..."

And he's going to need it to fend off the primary challengers he's going to get for his party's nomination in 2012.

Barack Obama is finished because Democrats are going to finish him off. He's toxic to everything they want to accomplish.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Yea Obama is ruining all that work Cheney put in isn't he.

That's funny. When I was at the Hall of Presidents in Disney World I must have missed the President Cheney robot.

Two unfinished wars

I thought Obama was going to get us out of those?

and the house blazing on fire.

What??? Did the British come back and torch the capitol again?

Florida said...

"Yea Obama is ruining all that work Cheney put in isn't he."

Garage, you really do miss the point, don't you?

It's not about Cheney. It's about Obama, who even with 60 votes in the Senate, and a majority in the House, could not get the job done.

It's about simple competence. Never again are the Democrats going to have the unbelieveable opportunity they got to enact their agenda.

And yet, they were unable to get the job done because of Barack Obama's leadership.

Now their historic chance has slipped away thanks to his inept leadership.

He'll pay a price for that as any leader of a party would. Are the Democrats going to reward this kind of incompetence with another nomination? I don't believe for a minute that they will.

Obama was elected largely on anti-war sentiment in his own party. And yet, he's signed authorizations to murder people using drones; he's authorized renditions; he's expanded the war in Cambodia, er ... I mean Afghanistan; he's re-upped the Patriot Act and re-enforced DADT; he's torturing Taliban using the Pakistani ISI to do nail pulling.

He's Barack W. Cheney.

And he's done.

Julius Ray Hoffman said...

Such a bold proclamation! Makes you almost feel like you could believe it...

Hoosier Daddy said...

But I'll hand it to you garage, Obama did manage to scrap longstanding federal bankruptcy laws, nationalize a few banks, auto companies and expand the number and salaries of federal employees.

Well done sir! Well done I say!

Original Mike said...

Obama has a war chest the size of the Titanic...

You do know what happened to the Titanic, don't you?

OldGrouchy Doug Wright said...

VP Cheney merely said what many of us believe to be the case and he said it well!

Cheers, and many more!

madawaskan said...

Ya, iceberg ahead!

But you know- there's that Global Weirding thing....

Hell I thought Friedman was reviewing Olympic male figure skating...

Original Mike said...

Obama. Capitan Smith. Yeah, works for me.

Joe said...

I got tired of hearing about "Permanent Democratic Majority" last year about this time, and I'm already tired of Obama, "One-Term POTUS." What ad ifference one year makes, much less two years will make in politics...I mean I imagine a number of folks wrote Clinton's Obit in '94 and we see how that turned out.

Still Obama did blow a major chance to re-shape America, with the control of the House and Senate (with 60 seats). He may be back in 2013, but I don't think he's going to accomplish all that much, UNLESS he gets a whole lot smarter.

Kensington said...

Madison Man:
"I think this may fall under the category heading Tell your audience what they want to hear. How many people go before the CPAC and say things are going south for them?"

If things were going south I would expect them to say nothing or to talk about something else, not encourage delusional thinking.

No, I suspect Cheney said it because he believes it.

Kensington said...

John Lynch:
"I'm fine with "the conservative cause" if it can deliver.

I'd be fine with "the progressive cause" if it had delivered."


Dude, pick a side already! The two outcomes won't be very similar. :-)

Kensington said...

Joe, I definitely caution against overconfidence on the matter of Barack Obama's single term presidency. I distinctly remember Rush Limbaugh crowing well into '95 that Clinton wouldn't even be on the ballot in '96.

LonewackoDotCom said...

Here's Dick Cheney, American hero laughing about not telling the folks back home about a very influential group he was a member of.

Meanwhile, the Contract from America's choices are a bit interesting both for what they include and the major, vital issue they ignore.

Up with conservatism!

El Pollo Real said...

When you base your entire campaign platform on not being Bush and not planning or realistically thinking beyond that, it makes logical sense that this would happen.
It was only a matter of time.

garage mahal said...

It's not about Cheney. It's about Obama, who even with 60 votes in the Senate, and a majority in the House, could not get the job done.

This post is about Cheney.

Did you ever think that perhaps blogging might not be your type of thing? Or politics for that matter. Obviously, Obama doesn't have 60 votes in the Senate. Know how I know? Because they took votes and they didn't add up to 60! He never had them to begin with.

Henry said...

That's funny. When I was at the Hall of Presidents in Disney World I must have missed the President Cheney robot.

So Cheney should have said, "I think that Joe Biden is a one-term vice-president."

But that would have given Obama more FDR (and Lincoln) pretensions.

If Obama is exhausted in 2012 and decides not to run for reelection, do you think Biden will run in his place? That would be wonderful. Hubert Humphrey, but without the charisma. We could have another Biden-Palin debate. Oh Joy!

holdfast said...

I wish Cheney would stop pussy-footing around and just tell us what he really thinks.

The left/MSM has done its job in vilifying him, and convincing the American people that he is a rogue and a thug, but despite all that, most people know on a gut level that he is our rogue and thug, whereas Obama is mister cool and urbane, but is he really for us, the people wonder?

And yes, he was born in the USofA - but is he really of it, does he want to be of it, or does he just want to change it?

Scott M said...

And yes, he was born in the USofA - but is he really of it, does he want to be of it, or does he just want to change it?

Ah. I often ponder this very question while doing my daily pre-flight 10 minutes of Buddhist meditation.

Opus One Media said...

"I think 2010 is going to be...."

the idea that Louis XIV is coming back through re-incarnation is just urban myth....

traditionalguy said...

The next thing we must discuss now that the GOP seems to be a sure winner is who gets the nomination? It is suddenly worth a lot more than it was when Sarah Palin started the fight on Face Book inn July. My preference will be a Palin/Rubio ticket.

AJ Lynch said...

Trad Guy:

Sorry to say this but Palin just isn't quick enough on her feet. In 2012, the country will be so sick of soundbites, it will be elect someone like Romney or Pawlenty.

Fred4Pres said...

Failure is often a better teacher than victory, so yes this should be a phenomenal year for the conservative cause.

Obama could be a one term president, but that assumes two things 1) no economic recovery before 2012 or a very anemic recovery; and 2) a decent GOP candidate with no serious third party challenge that would bleed off GOP votes.

A weak GOP candidate would encourage a serious third party challenge which would likely result in Barack Obama being re-elected.

I am not sure who that candidate is. Could Romney do it? My guess is possibly but unlikely (maybe he will surprise me). I doubt Palin or Huckabee could do it. I think you want a happy warrior, with Reagan like optomism, who can communicate why conservative values are better for economic recovery.

Julius Ray Hoffman said...

@t-guy- Palin is already the nominee. No one pays anyone else anywhere near the attention that they pay her. From here on out, it is all formality.

Rubio, by contrast, should stick to selling fish tacos. Or he should make an offering to the God of Attention, who thusfar does not favor him.

Opus One Media said...

ahhhh prognastications from a psycho...just when you think that guy got boiled down to a bucket of grease up he pops.

Fred4Pres said...

And while I do not care for President Obama's policies, I absolutely do not wish for economic failure or stagnation. Unfortunately I think Obama's policies will result in that.

Fred4Pres said...

I would not assume Palin is the nominee. First she needs to start running. Then she is going to face some challenges in the primaries. Assuming she can make some serious gains there, then we can seriously start talking of her being the nominee.

I doubt she will run (at least in 2012). She definitely wants to play a role in shaping policy and being a player in conservative politics, but I do not see her putting herself through that at this point.

traditionalguy said...

A J...Romney may be better at strategy. But as you say, the country is tired of a carefully stated position half in either camp. Plus, Romney is an old white man. All Palin has to do is be herself and keep making the right moves. Rubio will re-take most of the Hispanic votes lost in the Sotomayor debacle. Palin takes the mid-west, including Ohio, and Rubio takes Florida. Then the Fat Lady sings real loud

TRO said...

"did anyone see where we'd be today a year ago?"

Pretty much everyone who didn't vote for Barry could have told you where we would be. I know I did. I knew he would fall and fall fast he did.

Things are not going to get better for him as he is challenged by others in his party for the nomination (Hillary and Bayh to name two).

In other words, a Dem may win but it won't be Barry.

edutcher said...

Ann wrote...

"And I think that Barack Obama is a one-term president."

So, apparently does Barry.

garage mahal said...

Coming from the same guy that was so universally hated he had to send in a video instead of appearing at the last GOP convention?

He was ill, if I recall. As for hated, people certainly seem to be listening to him.

It's not about Cheney. It's about Obama, who even with 60 votes in the Senate, and a majority in the House, could not get the job done.

This post is about Cheney.


If it's about Richard B. Cheney's opinion of The Zero's viability, it's about The Zero.

PS Amazing how all the Lefties can do when faced with the truth they don't want to hear is jump up and down with their hands over their ears.

OldGrouchy Doug Wright said...

For garage and other trolls: Please remember "Hope and Change," that slogan is going to pushed down your throats often enough this fall so that even you trolls will gag on it.

Of course, the GOP has to watch out for hubris just as the Pelosi crowd has to realize that's what got them into their mess.

Nah, couldn't have been, it must have been those terrible "Party of No" folks, it's all their fault.

Hilarity ensures through fruited plain.

Cheers!

bagoh20 said...

The future of this country and consequently much of the world will depend on the American people having the intestinal fortitude and faith in their own values to make enormous changes in direction. Most of the world is now seeing the continued failure of top down government management of human enterprise. That failure has now manifest itself in every corner of the world and at every significant level of it's adoption.

The future will belong to those who relieve themselves of it's energy sucking yoke first and most completely.

This will be devastatingly hard for people living as comfortably as we still are, but it's the only way we will have a future worth passing on.

I don't know if we still have enough of those kind of people. I sure hope so; not for my sake but for those coming behind.

traditionalguy said...

J R H...I really like you. The Empress thanks you too. So tell me more about Rubio. To me Florida is a strange place full of every demographic known to politics.

victoria said...

Florida, great to hear your blah, blah blah about what "is" going to happen. Cheney is an old windbag with zero influence in the real world. I hope to God for all our sakes that he retreats to his bunker and bothers us no more. Every time I hear him I, like Will, feel that it heartens me. No one is a better advertisement for what we should not do than Cheney. Let his wacko daughter talk and publish her blog and bloviate on "news" shows on Fox all she wants. No one wants to listen to her either. Never has their been a more negative, angry family than the Cheney's. We are well rid of all of them.


Vicki from Pasadena

El Pollo Real said...

Rubio, by contrast, should stick to selling fish tacos.

LOL. Does anybody outside of SoCal even get that?

ricpic said...

Although Republicans will pick up a slew of seats in 2010 it won't be a conservative victory if those new Republicans proceed to "reach across the aisle," to the spend us unto death party. It's time to up their game from the party of no to the party of hell no.

bagoh20 said...

Us Boomers were born into and lived the pinnacle period of human prosperity and in the pinnacle nation that created much of it. In one lifespan we whittled it away, we sowed the bounty, but planted little of value in it's place. This is not surprising, since humans given an easy life usually perform poorly, while demanding more of that easy living.

We need to make amends now by making tough choices made necessary by our sloth and hedonism. It's nobody else's responsibility to take care of us from here on. We got more than our share already.

BJM said...

A slight digression; Ace offers yet another reason why progressives don't understand the size of the looming populist iceberg. The media runs hard to port while Obama rearranges the deck chairs and Congress sips brandy in the 1st class lounge.

We, the people in steerage, are about to commandeer all the lifeboats.

Julius Ray Hoffman said...

@ricpic-

Although Republicans will pick up a slew of seats in 2010 it won't be a conservative victory if those new Republicans proceed to "reach across the aisle," to the spend us unto death party. It's time to up their game from the party of no to the party of hell no.

Ahhh... the demonstrable need for leadership:

Someone to keep things in line. Someone to look at the big picture, and at the long term. Someone to prevent the sacrifice of large-scale interests at the altar of Immediate Expediency.

When the people cry "Caesar!", sometimes all a person can do is wave back and smile.

Scott M said...

@bagoh20

Agreed. In this context, anyone not paying attention to Greek (to a greater extent) and California (to a lesser extent) should start immediately.

It has occurred to me that someone much brighter and able to do real research than I should write a book not about "The Greatest Generation", but "The Bravest Generation". A book about an entire generation of Americans that will be forced to grow up and age in an America with little to no federal support.

Decisions for this "bravest" generations must be made now that they will have to endure as they grow, mature, and enter their own middle and later ages. That means less of every government function that doesn't cover the absolute basics. That means less entitlements. Bravest indeed.

This wouldn't so much amount to that spooky "third way" that always seems to crop up in politics just before violent upheaval, but rather the ability of the preceding generation to say not only is there no "third way", there are no "third rails" barring the way for the difficult decisions to be made.

The Boomers will not fix this. If they do, it would have to happen in the next couple of cycles, which I just don't see happening. It will be down to the X'rs and the Millennials, who had little to nothing to do with it's cause.

Julius Ray Hoffman said...

@t-guy: Love you too, man.

Michael said...

Victoria: You might be right that in the big world Cheney has little influence. But in Washington when he barks the Democrats and the President in particular try to bark back. If he were insignificant they would ignore him, but they can't because, at least on the subject of terrorism, he reflects the more widely shared views of how this administration is handling the topic.

Cedarford said...

Henry - If Obama is exhausted in 2012 and decides not to run for reelection, do you think Biden will run in his place? That would be wonderful. Hubert Humphrey, but without the charisma. We could have another Biden-Palin debate. Oh Joy!

I think it is pretty unlikely that the Republicans will throw behind a woman who quit the only two high offices she ever had in short order - even if she dishes up the red meat sound bytes the teabaggers love.

The Republicans got real stupid in 2008 selecting McCain. I don't think they wish to squander their chances on a woman so widely thought unfit for the Presidency outside the religious right base. Or get trapped by their own "Base" into fielding a candidate that passes all the "litmus tests" as McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry did for the Dems.

Romney+military person (ideally hispanic)or female not-Palin may make sense as an early "dream ticket".

The rest of the country cares about jobs and the economy.

Opus One Media said...

Michael

It isn't that he is merely insignificant, he is also psychotic. that is a double dose of trouble.

Robert Cook said...

Everything that's fucked about America today--the ongoing murder of our Republic, and the destruction of hope of a decent life for more and more Americans--is a result of those in power who have pushed, passed, or facilitated policies and thinking such as we see expressed by war criminal swine such as Cheney and his reactionary cohort.

And this doesn't exclude Democrats.

traditionalguy said...

J R H...Caesar's is a Pizza Place in Wasilla, Alaska. A coincidence? Its oregano and mozarella shipments come in by snowmachines from a secret Emperial Base deep within a mountain in the Italian Artic area. And it known locally that Palin was shooting only shooting wolves to hide the evidence that she was raised by wolves.Please keep all of this secret under SPQR Directive Seven.

pduggie said...

"Latimer got the assignment to write Bush's speech. Draft in hand, he and a few other writers met with the president in the Oval Office. Bush was decidedly unenthusiastic.

"What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?" the president asked Latimer.

Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement -- the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.

Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.

"Let me tell you something," the president said. "I whupped Gary Bauer's ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement."

Henry said...

If my sarcasm didn't come across, let me insert it here.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Cheney is half right. It's going to be a great year for conservatives. As for Barry, I think we’re stuck with a second term. A large block of voters will feel guilty about dumping our first affirmative action president. Instead, I think voters will neutralize him by going republican in the house and senate.

BJM said...

@bagoh20

We got more than our share already? *Cue the violins*

Apparently I missed the handout what with my nose to the grindstone/shoulder to the wheel and all.

As the largest demographic in our prime earning years, we boomers created/earned/invested and paid trillions into the government coffers annually for the past 20-25 years.

It's not like Washington and the states didn't see this coming, is it?

Michael said...

No problem with a second term with Obama if he is neutered. He can give speeches and set the stage for the five hundred million he will pocket when he is out of office. It is quite possible that he could learn some leadership skills in a second term where Republicans held one or both houses. America is always better off when nothing is being done in congress.

LonewackoDotCom said...

holdfast is one of the useful idiots Cheney laughed about on the video in my first comment.

Joe said...

Robert Cook said... such as we see expressed by war criminal swine such as Cheney and his reactionary cohort.

And this doesn't exclude Democrats.

Oh thank G*d, our prayers were answered...or denied, depending....

info said...

Look at the trolls coming to the surface for the bait...just like old times isn't it kiddies???

Only this time it's your "man" going down and he's taking your party with him!!!

Who you gonna hate NOW???

bagoh20 said...

"As the largest demographic in our prime earning years, we boomers created/earned/invested and paid trillions into the government coffers annually for the past 20-25 years."

Like I said: "In one lifespan we whittled it away, we sowed the bounty, but planted little of value in it's place."

Agreeing to pay that much into the state was our folly and continues our failure.

ricpic said...

Hey Hoffman, you gotta lay off the sauce, man.

Michael said...

War criminals have ruined the country? Swine? Reactionary cohort? Jesus, I have been having a dream that I was somewhere in the future, it was years from now, like thirty five or forty years and I was like nearly an old man and the country had elected a black president. Holy smokes!! At least I am back in 1972 and alive and still young and not old and out there in the future. Wow.....

Triangle Man said...

At least I am back in 1972 and alive and still young and not old and out there in the future. Wow.....

A future where anti-government domestic terrorists are not radical-leftists.

bagoh20 said...

While I'm ranting about my generation, I'll add another disappointment: That so many of the same people who raged against the government's abuses in the 60's now support and defend a much larger, more abusive and corrupt one today. No wonder we get laid so much less now.
God, we suck!

knox said...

I think 2010 is going to be a phenomenal year for the conservative cause.

OK, but if the republicans aren't on board--or competent--what does it matter?

They still need to prove that they can keep their hands out of the till when they're the ones in power. Otherwise, the accusation that they are just "the party of no" is true.

Republican pols: get your shit together. People are really wanting and expecting you to. And the country badly needs you to.

Big Mike said...

This is news? Did somebody expect that he would say otherwise? There were people who thought Cheney's boss would be a one-term president and people who thought Ronald Reagan would be a one-termer, and even people who thought Jimmy Carter would be a one-termer.

Oh, wait.

The election of 2012 is 32 1/2 months away. Lots of time for lots of things to happen.

CPAC and the Tea Party need to separate themselves from the GOP and be willing to endorse conservative Democrats who sign a pledge not to vote for Polosi or Hoyer for Speaker if the Democrats should hold the House after the 2010 elections.

Now that would give them clout.

Turtledove said...

Cheney is a national treasure and I hope he is correct about Obama and we get the grown ups back in the WH in 2012.

The imcompetence and incoherence of the Obama foreign policy is mind boggling.

Methadras said...

Robert Cook said...

Everything that's fucked about America today--the ongoing murder of our Republic, and the destruction of hope of a decent life for more and more Americans--is a result of those in power who have pushed, passed, or facilitated policies and thinking such as we see expressed by war criminal swine such as Cheney and his reactionary cohort.

And this doesn't exclude Democrats.


I wonder why you haven't flown a plane into an IRS building yet, cookie.

Mick said...

I have no respect for Cheney. He could have stopped Obama at the Electoral College, like he was Constitutionally charged to do. But he didn't, proving that both Right and Left were in on the plan to allow a Non Natural Born Citizen (father was never a US citizen) to Usurp the Presidency, and degrade the USC. I spit in his general direction, he is no patriot.

knox said...

I hope he is correct about Obama and we get the grown ups back in the WH in 2012.

LOL. There was an article last week on American Thinker about Obama called "I Was a Teenage President."

link

Robert Cook said...

"I wonder why you haven't flown a plane into an IRS building yet, cookie."

Well, for one: I believe in the rule of law, unlike Cheney and his ilk, and would never, like they or their peer terrorists in Al Qaeda, countenance such lawless savagery to achieve an end or to seek vengeance; for another: I abhor the murder of human beings, particularly for political aims, again unlike Cheney and his ilk and their peer terrorists in Al Qaeda; for yet another: although I am angry at the corruption and ongoing demolition of our Republic that the present and last several administrations have been efficiently executing, I am not personally an angry person and have no desire to lash out or punish others personally; and: I believe the people must effect change lawfully, through the means available to us constitutionally, rather than through ad hoc vigilantism, unlike--wait for it--Cheney and his ilk and their peer terrorists in Al Qaeda.

WV:"tardi" a state that would cause one to miss one's holiday.

Roger J. said...

What Big Mike said--long time to go and too much can happen. And I see no evidence that the GOP establishment has the remotest idea of what is going on. Advantage Mr Obama--even if he is an incompetent twit.

A House and Senate that can stifle Mr Obama is the best outcome that I can see (although I do relish the prospect of a democrat challenger to Mr Obama.)

Bruce Hayden said...

Well, for one: I believe in the rule of law, unlike Cheney and his ilk, and would never, like they or their peer terrorists in Al Qaeda, countenance such lawless savagery to achieve an end or to seek vengeance; for another: I abhor the murder of human beings, particularly for political aims, again unlike Cheney and his ilk and their peer terrorists in Al Qaeda; for yet another: although I am angry at the corruption and ongoing demolition of our Republic that the present and last several administrations have been efficiently executing, I am not personally an angry person and have no desire to lash out or punish others personally; and: I believe the people must effect change lawfully, through the means available to us constitutionally, rather than through ad hoc vigilantism, unlike--wait for it--Cheney and his ilk and their peer terrorists in Al Qaeda.

I think that this is the one of the greatest examples of moral relativism that I have seen here. Apparently if we all sit around the campfire and sing Kumbayah, all will be well, and we can all get along.

But I am reminded of the wall speech by Col. Jessep (Jack Nicholson) in "A Few Good Men". The difference though is that now we really are at war, while back then, in 1992, we had just won one.

Robert Cook said...

We are at war because we started these wars, and the war promoters in D.C. and in the media are encouraging we start yet another (in Iran). We are defending nothing except our self-claimed god-given right to fuck up the world to suit our interests, while exempting ourselves from the penalties we demand for other nations who, as we are doing, wage aggressive wars.

master cylinder said...

oh please please...let us see a Cheney/Palin ticket.

Robert Cook said...

An addendum to my reply to Bruce Hayden, to another part of his response to me. He said,

"I think that this is the one of the greatest examples of moral relativism that I have seen here. Apparently if we all sit around the campfire and sing Kumbayah, all will be well, and we can all get alon"

Where is the moral relativism? Where do I suggest we can all get along by sitting around a campfire singing "Kumbayah?"

I assert support for the rule of law and for constitutional means to address our grievances. It is men such as Joe Stack and Dick Cheney and Osama bin Laden--angry malcontent, ruthless power monger, and religious fanatic, respectively--who all embrace violence and lawlessness to achieve their ends, all equally heedless of the lives they destroy in pursuit of their personal vendettas or political goals.

In scoffing at my respect for rule of law, for abjuring needless and aggressive (as opposed to defensive) violence, do you assert support for such tactics? Cheney, to name the only one of these who acted as an official state agent, lied repeatedly to alarm the public and Congress in service of fomenting support for a baseless war of aggression in Iraq. He recently confessed publicly to being a war criminal, in his admission to having supported water boarding, recognized around the world and throughout history as a grievous torture.

And you read "moral relativism" in my remarks?

Michael McNeil said...

Has Cheney a history of correct predictions?

I seem to recall him predicting that the Iraq war would be a success — and wha'd'ya know, now (actually, as of last December) by a 57% to 40% margin, the American people agree that it is.

As far as Robert Cook's supposed “respect for rule of law” and castigation of “aggressive war” is concerned, it's high time he learned that there basically is no law on the international stage; and when somebody of the ilk of Saddam Hussein is involved — who was already waging war on America and had been for a dozen years — to paraphrase Patrick Henry, if this be “aggressive warfare” make the most of it! Personally, I'm extremely grateful (and a great many Iraqis are too) that Saddam is history and the Iraqi people now have the opportunity to make of their country what they (and not some megalomaniac tyrant) will(s).

(And Cedarford calling the Tea Partiers “teabaggers” shows yet again how far up his ass his head continually is.)

Robert Cook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"...when somebody of the ilk of Saddam Hussein is involved — who was already waging war on America and had been for a dozen years..."

Total bullshit.

Oh, wait, excuse me. In a world where three untried, uncharged, unconvicted prisoners at Guantanamo can "commit suicide" (the known facts suggest otherwise) and they can be said by the camp commander to have committed acts of "asymmetric warfare" against the United States, then "waging war on America" is anything we say it is!

A person in Iran who burns a dollar bill or another in Cuba who desecrates a picture of Barbara Bush--sainted for being married to and having birthed one George Bush each--can each be said to have "waged war on America."

Voila! We can shoot, burn or bomb the shit out of anyplace or any persons in the world we so choose, as they've all no doubt committed some act of war agin' us...we just have to define these acts after the facts and to suit the circumstances and our needs.

Moral relativism be damned...there's nothing so noble as the moral certainty of America!

Michael McNeil said...

Total bullshit.

Total bullshit is right — and it's coming from you. Tell your tall tales to all the American and British pilots whom Saddam's forces attempted to shoot down virtually every day of the year during all those years. Tell it to former President of the United States George H.W. Bush, whom Saddam tried to have assassinated. Not to speak of Saddam's attempts to keep the critical components of his atom bomb project (as well as biological warfare project — plague, anyone?) secreted away and available for instant resurrection once the heat was off. Naw, none of those things count as acts of war — now do they! Sheesh, what a joke you are.

Robert Cook said...

Where's your proof that the alleged plot to assassinate Bush was even real, or, if real, was connected to Hussein? The article at this link points out reasons why this would be unlikely. At any rate, the allegation has never been proved. Given our lies about "proof" Hussein had WMD, a sensible person's default reaction to any allegation about Hussein made by America must be resolute skepticism until facts warrant otherwise. Your assertions about Hussein's having kept components of his nuclear program has also been debunked.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1019-05.htm

You have it a bit backwards about the Amnerican and British flyovers of Iraq: we were bombing them.

http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html

Michael McNeil said...

Where's your proof that the alleged plot to assassinate Bush was even real, or, if real, was connected to Hussein?

Oh, yeah — it was completely out of character (not!) for Saddam Hussein to have attempted any such thing. I suppose there's no “proof” either that Saddam had his own sons-in-law executed for having the temerity to defect, carrying word of his (totally illegal) biological warfare project to the world.

Moreover, it was then-President Bill Clinton — not later Pres. George W. Bush — who saw and believed the FBI and CIA reports of the incident and retaliated for same. As far as I know nobody outside of the U.S. government — certainly not the authors of the article you pointed to — has seen the evidence that was convincing to Bill Clinton.

You have it a bit backwards about the Amnerican and British flyovers of Iraq: we were bombing them.

Sure — we bombed Iraqi surface-to-air missile sites whenever their radars would lock onto Coalition aircraft in an attempt to shoot them down — which Iraq tried to do basically every day. Furthermore, those no-fly zones were established in the first place in order to prevent Saddam from (further) massacring his own Iraqi citizens — the Shiites of the south and Kurds of the north.

Your assertions about Hussein's having kept components of his nuclear program has also been debunked.

1) By whom? You provide no reference for any such “debunking” — but if it's of the caliber that you provided in those earlier links, no doubt it's of equally unconvincing quality — while 2) it was Saddam's own top nuclear scientist Mahdi Obeidi who himself, on orders from Saddam's government, secreted away those critical parts and documentation, later informing the Coalition and leading them to the exact spot in his backyard where they were unearthed — then wrote it up in a book about it. Yeah right — it's been debunked! Not.

Thus we see in Robert Cook the typical far leftist — always making excuses and doubting the evil that a real megalomaniac like Saddam Hussein was capable of, despite his monstrous record — while infinitely credulous where allegations of misdeeds by his own country's leaders are concerned.

Robert Cook said...

"Moreover, it was then-President Bill Clinton — not later Pres. George W. Bush — who saw and believed the FBI and CIA reports of the incident and retaliated for same. As far as I know nobody outside of the U.S. government — certainly not the authors of the article you pointed to — has seen the evidence that was convincing to Bill Clinton."

So? Clinton scarcely has any greater credibility than Bush. Clinton, Bush, and Obama are all acting in service of the extension of American empire, and absent any credible evidence to the contrary, one must view their purported reasons for acting against other nations as deceptions meant to conceal their actual agenda.

At bottom, we have no proof there was ever a plot by Hussein to assassinate Bush, Sr., but only accusations by those with motive to justify their violent actions against other nations.

Fulminate all you like about Hussein having "waged war" against America, but in all respects we were the aggressors against him. I do not doubt or excuse Hussein's evil character or brutality, but he never attacked us or threatened us and thus our invasion of Iraq was illegal...a war crime.

I know Glenn Greenwald is largely disdained around these parts, but he is one of our most valuable commentators on current events. He recently said this as a response to those who criticize Americans who condemn American misbehavior abroad, especially when, as the "support America always" crowd asserts "they are so much worse than us,"

"The primary duty of a citizen is to protest bad acts by their own government."

I think this is axiomatic. John McCain, for whom I have no great regard, put it well and succinctly when he stated why we should not torture, despite what our enemies might do. He said,

"It's not about who they are; it's about who we are."