Where was Cheney?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 2:37 AM GMT
    If those torture techniques were necessary per Cheney, where was he when those soldiers were being prosecuted? Why didnt he speak out then?


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 2:44 AM GMT
    I thought at the time those junior enlisted soldiers were being set up. Now it appears it was true. The Bush Administration let innocent soldiers go to jail (some are still there), terming them "rogues" when in fact they were just following orders.

    Can the Republicans stoop any lower? They who claim they are the champions of the military, when they actually sent innocent soldiers to jail to cover their own crimes? I thought it was bad enough when our Veterans benefits were slashed under Bush, all the while claiming to be so pro-military. But this is beyond the pale. It begins to look like the French Dreyfus scandal from the late 19th Century.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 3:54 AM GMT
    I recall in watching the documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side" that the Bush Administration had actually pardoned civilian officials from any sort of misconduct related to the torture victims. I think they said it was a not very well known caveat in the Military Commission Act or something like that...at the same time refusing to lend any sort of protection to the military.

    The priority for them was distancing the civilian half of the chain of command.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 5:15 AM GMT
    Yes the Military Commissions Act of 2006 exonerates all officials (specifically in the Bush administration, but not exclusively) who advocated torture - it literally has a section where it states that no official can be charged under the Geneva Conventions for any war crimes, etc.

    On top of that, the act also legalizes torture of anyone - foreign or US citizens.

    Oh, and FYI: Obama voted FOR this and has yet to repeal it (dont hold your breath).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 7:24 AM GMT
    First, though he is my little elfish buddy, I have to chuckle to myself at his comment about Obama. The first 100 days haven't passed, let alone the first 2 years, after which the majority of people really decide to keep or change presidents. It amazed me all the naysayers who are just chomping at the bit to cut the legs off of Obama.

    As to Cheney: My question: You were barely a footnote during the 8 years as VP. We know more about Laura Bush than the actual VP himself other than he "accidently" shot someone on a hunting trip. Why speak out now? Or is he hoping to either jump on the Limbaugh bandwagon as the new face of republicanism or resurrect his hopes of becoming President?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 9:17 AM GMT
    Okay, yes, the hundred days haven't passed. However, that is pretty much irrelevant as since the first week, we could see that "change" was just a word used to get into power. Political rhetoric is a powerful tool, and i don't believe in blind faith in ANY political leader, because it leads to nothing but disaster.

    Anytime in history a political leader has had the blind faith of a population, it has ALWAYS and without exception, ended badly.

    For the record, I never supported Obama, from the day he announced he was running back in 2006, I was sceptial and didn't hold any hope for his proposed "change".

    Also for the record, I dont like the republicans. Both parties are the War Party, and Obama is merely the current political puppet head of the American Empire.

    Sound cynical? Sure. I accept that, but my cynicism is based upon everything I have seen of the Obama administration. One political economist once said, "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will."

    I try to live by that.

    I am often told that i should "give him a chance". But he has given me NO reason to have any faith, whatsoever.

    He announced he would consider closing Guantanamo in one year, yet, that doesn end the institution of wrongful imprisonment - where will those prisoners go? why are they still not permitted to have trials... or evidence?

    we hear some political rhetoric about "stopping torture" - but yet the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which Obama voted FOR has not yet been repealed... and it legalizes torture of foreign and US citizens.

    Bush had Big Oil and Military corporations highly represented in his administration, yet Obama has more representatives of financial Wall Street in his administration than in any other before. Most of whom were the prime architects of the current financial crisis.

    They are there to ensure that the bankers are protected, and that they are the prime concern of the Obama administration, while his flowery rhetoric will put the people to sleep so they wont notice the looting going on before them. The bailouts or "stimulus" bills dont solve anything, they just prolong the inevitable, and help the banks while at it.

    Instead of "bringing the troops home" which he initially said would be his first act as President, he decided to change his mind and extend the mission for another two years, and then withdraw some troops, while leaving 50,000 there to man the dozens of US military bases. In other words, maintain the imperial presence.

    Also, he has undertaken an expansion of the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, by expanding the Afghan war into Pakistan. Pakistan is set for collapse in the next few months to few years, when that happens, it will spread chaos through the region, even more so than it already has. US policies and actions in Pakistan serve this end and exacerbate this problem.

    Obama's National Security Adviser, a former General, said that Africom, the nation's new Africa Military Command, is designed to secure access to Africa's resources. In other words, expanded wars in Africa, likely under the name of "humanitarian intervention".

    What about in terms of wiretapping, illegal surveillance, and the police state at home? Instead of reversing the direction Bush took, Obama has continued down the same road. Not only have telecom companies been granted immunity from lawsuits (something Obama campaigned against), but the same illegal spying is continuing unabated, and Obama's justice department has even moved to protect members of the Bush administration from lawsuits for illegal spying.

    All that is really needed to see that "change" became "continuity" is the financial element of the administration.

    Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, formerly of the New York Fed, the most powerful of the 12 regional PRIVATE federal reserve banks which represent, and are owned by the big banks (such as JP Morgan Chase), whose interests the Fed serves.

    The head of the economic advisory chair was a former Director of the Federal Reserve, and architect of the 1980s debt crisis, Paul Volcker.

    Lawrence Summers, head of the economic council and top economic adviser to Obama, formerly a managing director of a hedge fund, who has alos made millions from JP Morgan, Citigroup and Lehman Bros, Goldman Sachs, etc. Under Clinton's administration, Summers, as Treasury Secretary, was the leading advocate of banking deregulation and the repeal of the Glas Steagal Act, which led DIRECTLY to the current crisis.

    Michael Froman, deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, worked for Citigroup and received more than $7.4 million from the bank from January of 2008 until he entered the Obama administration this year.

    Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, was paid $3.9 million by a Washington law firm whose major clients include Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and the private equity firm Apollo Management.

    Even Joseph Stiglitz, nobel prize winning economist and former chief economist of the World Bank said that Obama's policies will fail because they are designed to help Wall Street (funny that):

    So while his first hundred days haven't passed... why do i have to wait for one hundred days to say what i see and criticize what is wrong?

    Why are people able to turn a blind eye to everything that Obama does, simply because he is the one doing it?

    If it were any other leader doing this same crap, the people would have thrown him out by now. And with good reason.

    The US political system, and the President as its leader, do not represent nor serve the interests of the people of the US. It hasn't for a very long time. They serve the interests of Wall Street, the big corporations and specifically the big banks, that own the corporations on one hand, and the government on the other.

    What makes us think that with a new politician in power, this has changed? Because he said "change" so much? Sorry, but ALL politicians say "change" and use a lot of nice words to make people ignorant of the real agenda. All politicians (who have a lot of power) lie, and dont think twice about it. And specifically since so many representatives of Wall Street finance are directly in his administration, this is representative of whose interests are being served.

    I'm sorry, but does anyone really think Obama could have gotten where he got to if he didn't agree to serve the interests of US capital and the corporate-financial elite? It's just not possible.

    When does blind faith become blindness?

    Call me a cynic, a pessimist, whatever - ive heard it all before. Laugh at what i say, fine... I'd have hope and faith if i was given reason for hope and faith.

    I have no doubt that things will be changing. In fact, i think things will be changing more in the next 3 years than in the past 10 to 20... but i dont think its change for the better. Everything i have seen screams loud and clear to me that what we are seeing is "continuity" in bad policies, not "change" to good ones.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 9:30 AM GMT
    MOM, I disagree with your political p.o.v., and think you'd be better at looking in your own back yard before you go criticizing the political landscape in the U.S. - Canada's fruit doesn't fall far from this political tree, either.

    Don't make me have to put you over my knee and give you a solid spanking!

    America has been oppressed by big business, greed, ignorance and a lack of humanity for far too long. That's not to say other countries aren't, either, but it seems America is only now beginning to find its voice again.

    Obama and his administration are taking steps in the right direction. As far as I'm concerned, baby steps are better than no steps at all, or steps backwards.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 9:37 AM GMT
    Well I am just as critical of my own backyard as I am the neighbor to the South.

    Canadian political leaders are also corrupt and owned by big business.

    As you said, many countries are, and i would argue, almost all entirely are.

    The US is simply ahead of the curve.

    I am used to people disagreeing with my political point of view, but I look at it from my own perspective, that of a student of history and Global Political Economy, and i have to say, the blind faith in Obama terrifies me, and the policies i see leave me no hope.

    And while some would agree with you that America is now again "finding its voice", i dont. America has a new voice. But i see it as speaking for the same interests.

    Lies, lies, etc.

    You can buy me a beer when you realize I was right. ;)

    But i'll still let you bend me over and spank me icon_wink.gif
  • junknemesis

    Posts: 682

    Apr 23, 2009 9:41 AM GMT
    MeOhMy saidBut i'll still let you bend me over and spank me icon_wink.gif

    *Grabs his paddle and ball-gag* As you wish.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 9:43 AM GMT
    suckin dick in a strange alley in d.c.?
  • alwaysonpoint

    Posts: 173

    Apr 23, 2009 11:09 AM GMT
    I've heard many people say they want thing back to the way they were before 9-11: financial security and feeling safe at home, which both equal a peace of mind. From my perspective, we're on a track in that direction. Of course, only time will tell.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11556

    Apr 23, 2009 12:42 PM GMT
    he was at his "undisclosed location".. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 1:17 PM GMT
    He was too busy eating babies and kicking puppies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 1:56 PM GMT
    And too busy getting apologies from people he shoots ...

    And committing treasonous acts like publicizing the name of a spy ...

    And for fun, watch yesterday's (04/22/09) episode of The Dialy Show with John Stewart. It's a hoot!
  • metta

    Posts: 44476

    Apr 23, 2009 4:53 PM GMT

    Today, a coalition of organizations is presenting more than 250,000 petition signatures to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder requesting that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute Bush-era officials responsible for torture carried out under the Bush Admnistration.

    More than 134,000 people have signed the referendum at IndictBushNow.

    You can sign here:




    Posts: 641

    Apr 23, 2009 5:06 PM GMT
    wow... VICE PRES CHENEY as i call our pres [PRESIDENT OBAMA] and:

    they were- all but1- just being INVESTIGATED. NO INDICTMENTS (many yelled at the AG!
    ). The one, he was investigated, charged and found guilty of much lesser Chrg, whereas he was eligible of an HONORABLE DISCHARGE.

    real situation now is why Holder and Obama say their actions 'did NOT rise to the level of torture' as there 'was NO permanent physical and or mental damage'., and both sed [hint hint] they'll have the 'underlings do a tougher and full- complete investigation', meaning let it die down then u report wut i've sed.

    interesting, Pres O has been constantly stating all that he blieves 2 b Pres B's fault 'cept he says 'no reason to bring up the past at all. We should only look forward, and ignore the past.' CAN U SAY DOUBLE SPEAK BULLSHIT????''

    And when J. Immelt [chair/board, tv/movie division] of GE owning both NBC and MSNBC [amongst others,] issues a statement in memo stating that MSNBC AND NBC must do all they can as Pres. O's honeymoon cums to end in apprx 1 month, 2 try to get the independents back in2 his 'camp'. as he lost 36% of their voting support.

    no surprise this
    and all Obama is great/ Bush is anti-christ with Cheney as his evil doer shows up on MSNBC.. TIRED OF ANTI BUST RANTS AND INSINUATIONS.

    even worse, when CNN CALLS OUT MSNBC's REPORTING AS BIASED, BACKED UP BY THE ABC NETWORK, well obviously they are extremely biased. AT LEAST ONLY 1 CNN REPORTER, NOW FIRED, SPOKE ANTI BUSH WORDS AT THE 'TEA PARTIES'- susan l.... guess 17.7 million emails from viewers did the trick- no worries, MSNBC will hire her, LOL!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 5:26 PM GMT
    Tapper, in a nutshell, says what I have been saying all along. For the record MeOhMy, I did not critize Bush during the beginning of his 2 term presidency. Admittedly, I was a bit biased because of the way he because president, but that is besides the point. He was already president. You have some relivant points that anyone thinking person would agree with and see on their own, but one of things that you said kind of got under my skin, actually two. First, there is NO SUCH THING as the "American Empire". Canada was part of the last real empire, hence "The sun never sets on the British Empire." And for the record, it isn't blind faith that drove us to the polls to elect Obama> It was the hope of a different future and if and when hope becomes something other than a four letter word, I will gladly check out and watch the world, not just my own country, self destruct.

    I still believe Obama wants to do the right thing and will navigate in such a way to see it done. As Tapper said, baby steps are better than no steps and while we are at it, as I have said to others, while critizing is certainly your right, if indeed someone wants to help, it would serve them well to offer alternatives to what is going on. From where I sit and what I have read, not a single naysayer has offered such. Better the action we are taking then not taking any action at all.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 5:36 PM GMT
    "First, there is NO SUCH THING as the "American Empire"."

    So none of the 700+ military installations in foreign countries count?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 6:11 PM GMT
    who is Cheney?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 6:20 PM GMT
    andymatic said"First, there is NO SUCH THING as the "American Empire"."

    So none of the 700+ military installations in foreign countries count?


    These installations are in place with the agreements of other govt. My god people. You will see what is not there and call it dirt if it makes you right. Funny stuff.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 7:21 PM GMT
    Okay, I'm sorry but to say "there is no such thing as the American Empire" - I'm kind of... taken aback that people can actually believe the US is NOT en empire.

    In political science, this is a given. There is no discussion as to whether or not the US is an empire, it is just what kind of empire, or is the empire in decline or what are the aims of its empire.

    The US IS an empire, and has been since the end of World War II.

    Overthrowing dozens upon dozens of governments of foreign countries, largely through covert action by the CIA, in the interest of US capital, is by definition, imperial action. The Vietnam, Yugoslav, Afghan and Iraq wars are all imperial wars.

    Whatever the world's imperial hegemon at the time, it runs the global political economy. It used to be Britain, and now it is the US, which set t up under the Bretton Woods System, made the dollar paramount in 1971 by dropping the link with gold. Controlled the World Bank and significant stake in the IMF, which are not aid agencies, but are agencies of financial imperialism. These organizations go to "help" countries by making them inact certain policies and changes in order to get a loan, which end up destroying the economy and collapsing the country, leading to foreign, primary US, corporations and banks buying up the entire country. This is imperialism, primarily financial imperialism.

    The US is the very definition of empire. The Congress and political system at home is as much of a joke as the Roman Senate. They bicker over who gets to run the empire, not question whether or not there should be an empire.

    Thus, Obama is the imperial president.

    And for the record, i think his presidency will be one of the most significant in history, because the American empire is in decline and will likely collapse - as a result of economic collapse. The economic crisis itself is a symptom of empire.

    As such, i think that Obama will oversee the move to the next system, with the end of the US empire, and start of the creation of the new hegemon. Which is going in the direction of a truly internationalized regime - regionalization and internationalization of the political, economic, monetary, and social structures.

    Oh, and what i meant by blind faith was not in voting for Obama. I know why people voted for him, he offered hope, was a great speaker, and people were in desperate need of hope, i get it. Bling faith, however, is when people hold faith in a leader without reason - that they believe him and that he will do whatever is right and that whatever he does is the right thing to do even if it is so obvious that it isnt, because it is HIM doing it, makes it right. It is religious belief in a political leader, and it is the most dangerous tool to ever offer a politician.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2009 7:27 PM GMT
    America's empire is an empire of trust. Which is why Bush and company's behavior was so devastating. They breached the trust. ....and why we must hold them accountable ...to show that we deserve the trust by respecting the rule of law and our international obligations.