Deadye Dick Cheney


Shoot first, ask questions later- the theme of the Bush administartion. I’m more surprised Cheney has found someone that would admit to being his “buddy” than I am that he shot him. SInce Cheney is probably running pretty low in the friends department, we the humble citizens of the United States suggest you take W hunting with you next time. And if an “accident” happens, well, I think we could let it slide.

Mr. Cheney, I think it’s great you have so much free time to go hunting. I’m sure menfolk all across the country envy you. Most of the hunters I know are lucky to get out in the woods maybe once a year, and even then, they’re lucky to get a good shot off. Most come home having never fired their weapons, nor bagged a prize buck or what have you. See, they don’t have rich ass Texas friends with 50,000 acre ranches. Oh yeah, they also have jobs.

60 Comments so far

  1. Gabe (unregistered) on February 16th, 2006 @ 2:22 pm

    1) It matters because he’s a public figure like Cheney. I could say the same thing about Cheney’s incident. How many people get shot while on hunting trips every year but how often do you hear about it (unless it’s a close relative of yours)? How many guys get a BJ everyday but does it make frontpage news? Not unless it’s a public figure. As many of you have said, our leaders have an accountability to us the voters (just look at the Abramoff scandal). If this wasn’t true, we wouldn’t be having this discussion about Cheney.

    2) He lied about it. If he lied about that, how do we know he didn’t lie about something else? Cheney didn’t lie about the incident. In fact, he accepted full responsibility. Clinton only stepped forward after he couldn’t hide it anymore. Then he started doing the 2-step (I did not have sex with THAT woman).

  2. Danny Doom (unregistered) on February 16th, 2006 @ 2:54 pm

    You can go on and on and I’m still not going to care, much as the majority of Americans didn’t at the time. As Henry Hyde and Bob Barr proved, there are sex scandals waiting to happen all over DC if you look hard enough. The hypocrisy of those two in particular is laughable. It was a witch hunt and everyone knew it. But it is long since time to “move on.” Clinton and Bush I are now good buddies, brothers they say. W must love that.

    For all of Bush and Cheney’s un-likability, it is their policies that I hate more than anything else. I think they’ve done a terrible job. I believe the majority of the country agrees with that as well.

  3. Ben2 (unregistered) on February 16th, 2006 @ 2:59 pm

    Im not sure where you are going Danny…

    Kerry never released his records about Vietnam, especially since he claimed he was in Cambodia committing atrocities. I really don’t care if he releases them now, but the point is you want the media to know about stuff quick (philosophical question: is it the media’s right to know?), and its tough to be quick when you NEVER get the information.

    Support the troops? Its funny you have warped that into some Bush-hatred attack… the “us or them” mentality I guess you pin on Bush. Yeah he said it about NATIONS. But it is funny, if you think about it, saying “I support the troops, but I don’t like the war.” Its like saying “I support fire fighters, but I don’t like them fighting fires.” Soldiers are far from being children, they chose to be in the military and they by far support Bush. Hence, Gore’s rabid attempts to not count their votes in Florida in 2000.

    But back to the issue at hand, let me stress consistency once again, because you’ve got none. I’ve asked about 5 times now why Cheney’s accident is more important than Iran, Al Gore or the Saddam tapes, and instead of answering you try to make all of those issues useless. So again: Why is the Cheney story MORE IMPORTANT than Saddam’s tapes or Al Gore’s sedition or Iran’s nuke program?

    Then we could also admit that no answer Cheney gives will be good enough but what you want to hear. But I doubt that.

  4. Danny Doom (unregistered) on February 16th, 2006 @ 3:14 pm

    My point about supporting the troops is that the Bush team has no problem disparaging a soldier’s military service if they happen to be running against them in an election, as John McCain and John Kerry both found out. It hurts a little more coming from guys who never served.

    And, yes, it is possible to support the troops while disagreeing with the war, and the president. It takes some independent thought and a little extra brain power, but you can do it. There are plenty of soldiers who have come out and spoke against this war since they’ve returned.

    I already answered that silly question above, why don’t you go back and find it?

  5. Ben2 (unregistered) on February 16th, 2006 @ 3:42 pm

    Allright, so you claim the Bush attacks the military service of his “opponents.” So what did Democrats do to Bush on his service? Oh yeah, they tried their darndest to prove he didn’t serve in the national guard. So keeping that in my mind, we can then look at who did the attacking on Bush’s “opponents.” Suddenly, all of those medal winners that tried to call out lying (I have respect for medal of honor winners and the military in general) of Kerry are evil and mean, but its Bush’s fault.

    It is impossible to support the troops but not the war… I’d like to hear your explanation of how that works and not be attacked personally.

    And yes, a few soldiers have spoken out. How often does the media headline those that support the war when they come back? Duh, that’s a no brainer…

  6. Danny Doom (unregistered) on February 16th, 2006 @ 4:13 pm

    Nothing is impossible, B2.

    It’s quite simple. Here, I’ll say it: I am against the Iraq War and its unjustified and illegal premise, and I am against the President who started this war by mis-leading the American people. I believe the troops should come home as soon as possible, because I want them to live, all of them who are still alive. 2200+ have died for this war and that is 2200+ too many. I believe that the President has put them in an unwinnable situation of no fault of their own, and it is time to stop that.

    While I’m at it, I would like to declare that I am posthumously against the Vietnam War too.

    It is also possible to support the war and not the troops by providing insufficient armor or equipment, an ongoing complaint from soldiers in Iraq. Another way is to cut their veteran benefits once they return.

    Are you against the troops that have come back and spoken out against the war? Much as John Kerry did in the 70’s? Or do you support them and their right to speak of what they know firsthand? Did you support the troops in Bosnia when Bill Clinton sent them? Or was that any different?

  7. Ben2 (unregistered) on February 16th, 2006 @ 4:48 pm


    You believe the Iraq War was illegal and unjustified, and you believe the President mislead the people. The soldiers’ job is to protect the nation, and every last one of them CHOSE to do it. Their job, and they knew it going in, was to kill people in defense of our nation. You repeatedly and devoutly choose to ignore context in every situation involving the war to serve your interests.

    How many soldiers have died in other wars we have engaged in? What were the factors contributing to the only war in our history we “lost?” What horrible things were we fighting against in Saddam’s torture rooms?

    No I am not against the troops who speak out against the war. I was also not against Bosnia, and so support the troops there.

    Let me look for consistency with your argument. If it is indeed found that Saddam had WMDs and they are now hidden in Syria, what would your stance on the war be? (I am currently a disbeliever in that claim, but if it were to happen….)

    Second, let me rephrase my Cheney question so you don’t side-step it. Is the Cheney story more important to you than Al Gore, Iran, or Saddam?

    And finally, it is utterly ignorant to say that our situation in Iraq is unwinnable. How is it unwinnable? Is the fact that they are one of a few functional republics in the Islamic world? After only a short time? What about the context of how every war cannot go according to plan (none do, duh)? Explain how Iraq is unwinnable.

  8. Danny Doom (unregistered) on February 16th, 2006 @ 5:27 pm

    Last post for me…

    I was against the war then and now because Iraq was obviously not a threat, and certainly not an imminent threat. If there ever was a nation that was contained it was Iraq. Unlike, say, Iran. And also because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It seemed then, and still does now, a stupid thing to do. I trust Richard Clarke’s position (Against All Enemies) and the inspectors who were there and the various intelligence that somehow didn’t get relayed to the American public. Finding WMD would not change that for me because I still don’t see Iraq as a threat to the U.S.

    I have not side-stepped your question, why can’t you see what I wrote? I answered this quite some time ago. The Cheney story has gone from a big story to a small story. This is because he actually talked about it instead leaving it up to speculation. Simple as that. For me, it is funny, and that’s about it. Again, you address the issue and it usually goes away. He made Jon Stewart’s week though, to his credit. A gift!

    The Al Gore story is a non-story as far as I’m concerned. I don’t see what he did that was wrong, and obviously it has not been picked as a big story by anyone except you. I still have yet to see anything besides what Nikkos put up. And like I said, even Drudge is not putting it up there with sirens and shit. But I don’t disagree with what he said anyway. It sounds like Rush or someone must be carrying on about this, yes?

    Again, I said that the Iran story is important, but unless there is something actually happening, what is to report? On Monday, the Cheney story was bigger; today it isn’t. See how that works? Is there a development? I haven’t heard, but maybe… I mean, it’s silly to rate them in order of importance because tomorrow it all changes. To use a McClellan phrase, it is an ongoing investigation and I have nothing else to say.

    The short story of our unwinnable war: if we stay the insurgents continue their assault and our soldiers keep dying; if we leave, civil war. Both may occur anyway. But I don’t see how our continued occupation will decrease the resentment by Iraqis.

    I don’t know how else I can answer your questions, I speak for me and I try to speak for why the media is what it is. But isn’t it obvious? If it bleeds it leads.

  9. Ben2 (unregistered) on February 16th, 2006 @ 5:46 pm

    Allright, well last post for me too I guess.

    I understand your post about why Cheney was more important… though I disagree with the media that it is even an issue for anything but a laugh. A reason to scream and carry on like children in the White House press room…. definitely not. It is really nothing more than another reason why the national media deserves contempt and a lot of criticism they just don’t get. Maybe they’ll see when their ratings drop and the newspapers’ circulations plummet further.

    It is sad that you think a country with WMDs that could fire them at neighboring countries is a threat. I certainly am not concerned solely about our country. And the fact you still think there was zero connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq is silly, but of course the national media doesn’t report that either. True, Saddam didn’t take part in 9/11, but that wasn’t why we went there. We have 15+ reasons for that.

    Al Gore being a non-story is another sad development. That you are not ashamed and outraged that he would say things like that is telling. You may be against the war, but what is the best way to go about expressing that? Inciting violence in Saudi Arabia is not one way.

    I understand how the media works, and it seems like your point became clear. Again, my ire is against the media, not you in this case.

    Finally, you miss the third option of how the war can turn out. We are not going to pull out immediately, we are going to wait until they can defend themselves. Most Iraqis don’t like being occupied but see it as a necessary evil. But you don’t hear that in the media either. As soon as the security forces are ready they can handle themselves and we will leave. I no more want soldiers to die than you.

    I guess my point overall is that if the media chose to report something other than “if it bleeds it leads,” the whole public opinion would be different. If they showed Saddam’s torture chambers, interviewed individuals imprisoned by him, if they showed the soldiers doing good like they truly are and interviewed Iraqis all over the country, they may be able to paint an accurate picture. Maybe it is the fault of the medium, that all we get is a 5 second blurb and the attention getters win, but the lack of responsibility, patriotism, and morality in the media today is deplorable. The media has a huge amount of power and with its aims at the big story (sometimes creating its own but hardly ever criticizing its own) it wields that power incorrectly.

  10. nikkos (unregistered) on February 17th, 2006 @ 12:36 pm

    “And the fact you still think there was zero connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq is silly, but of course the national media doesn’t report that either.”

    For an extremely thorough and authoritative take on this issue- and the issues underlying the march to war in Iraq- I highly recommend this lengthy essay by Paul R. Pillar, currently on the faculty of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University. Formerly, he had a long career in the Central Intelligence Agency, he also served as National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.