Posts Tagged Dick Cheney
Why Aren’t Neo-Cons Calling for the Invasion of N. Korea?
Posted by Lance Haley in Conservatives, Dick Cheney, Fox News, Media & Communication, National Security, Republicans, Sarah Palin, War on Terror on July 28th, 2010
KIM JUNG IL
First they claimed Saddam Hussein was insane? And in the last year or so they were clamoring about how mad Ahmadinejad of Iran is, what with all of his Holocaust-denial crap (sounds like the “birther” movement, eh?).
But Kim Jung IL of North Korea is in a category all his own – this guy is simply crazier than a rat in a tin shithouse.
Weapons of Mass Destruction? Check.
Threat to U.S. National Security and World Peace? Check.
State sponsor of terrorism? Check.
Has all the trappings of another “Operation Iraqi Freedom” – you know, “Mission Accomplished“?
So where are those “drum beats for war“, and WTF is Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Fox News, and the rest of those sabre-rattling Neo-Cons doing sitting on their hands? They were wrong on Iraq. They keep talking about Iran. But in this case – we can call it “Operation N. Korea Freedom” – they even have a damn good chance at being right for a change! Or are they too scared to let Obama wag the dog ?
We’re waiting . . . . . . . . . . ?
Man, this silence is deafening.
Bill O’Reilly Claims Fox News NEVER Said You Could Go To Jail For Failing to Purchase Health Insurance
Posted by Lance Haley in Bill O'Reilly, Conservatives, Fox News, Glenn Beck, Healthcare Reform, How and Why We Get Screwed, Media & Communication, Politics, Republicans on April 16th, 2010
REALLY, O’Reilly?
Several nights ago you decided to take Senator Tom Coburn to task on national television for his recent comments regarding Fox News’ common use of disinformation to confuse voters. So in the course of your interview, you challenged him specifically on the issue regarding whether Fox News ever disseminated the notion that anyone could go to jail for not buying health insurance under the Health Care Reform bill.
You stated, and I quote, ““We researched on Fox News if anybody had ever said you’re going to jail if you don’t buy health insurance. Nobody’s ever said it.”
Well Bill, I suggest you hire some competent researchers, because the one’s you have must be hittin’ the bong in the back room. There it is in black and white, lifted straight out of Fox News’ transcripts. Read it and weep . . . and weep . . . and weep . . .
Bill. Don’t you, Sean Hannity, Fox News, The Pope, The Vatican , and Dick Cheney just love this new digital age we are in?
I DO!
Wonder Why President Obama Raised His Own Taxes?
Posted by Lance Haley in Budget Deficit, Business and Money, Capitalism, Economics, economy, taxes on April 16th, 2010
In case you forgot – and I am almost certain you didn’t – today is April 15th. Tax day. Not that you needed or wanted any reminder.
But there are a few things you might not have considered, and a way to re-frame the notion of taxes in order to understand why we pay them – albeit reluctantly.
As was reported today in the Wall Street Journal, the Obamas just paid $1.8 MILLION in income taxes the year. FYI: that is NOT a typo.
Want to put that in perspective? In 2008, George Bush paid just shy of $204,000 in income taxes; and Dick Cheney paid approximately $600,000 in taxes that same year. That means that President Obama paid over twice as much in income taxes his first year in office than George Bush and Dick Cheney did combined in their last year in office.
So when President Obama increased Medicare contributions on the top 1% of wage earners in this country in order to help fund health care reform, he raised his own taxes. Not your taxes – unless you make in excess of $250,000 a year. His taxes. That is something only one President – George Bush I – has ever agreed to do in almost thirty years.
And the President may later propose to raise taxes again on himself and the very rich. Why, you might ask?
Because this President understands that sublimating his own financial self-interests to that of the greater social good is something Americans have always expected from those who could most afford it – a notion that seems quaint and antiquated in this era of repacious greed and obscene self-interest. Sacrificing a portion of one’s wealth for the good of America was one of the principle things that made this country so great.
Want proof? Read it and weep . . .
This chart from the Citizens for Tax Justice outlines the income tax rates for the top 1% of taxpayers in the United States since 1916. Take note of several very salient facts:
1) It may surprise you to learn that with the exception of 1916 (%15), 1925-31 (25%), and 1988-92 (30% +/-), the current tax rates for the wealthiest Americans has never been lower (35%);
2) In the past, high tax rates on the very rich were able to offset severe economic conditions (The Great Depression), the high costs of war (WW II, Korea, and Vietnam), and helped financed the greatest economic expansion in this country’s history (The Go-Go Years of Wall Street – late 1950’s to mid 1960’s);
3) The reason most Americans now pay a higher rate of taxes in relation to inflation-adjusted income is that the very rich have paid far less in taxes since 1988 – a policy that should not be lost on anyone, Republican or Democrat; the rich DO keep getting richer. Unfortunately, political rhetoric and economic propoganda trumps truth virtually every time.
Here is the reality, America: If you want to reduce deficits, balance the budget for future generations, keep entitlements at their present levels (Social Security and Medicare), and reinforce the middle-class, taxes on the very wealthy are going to have to go up. Significantly.
Call it what you may – “transferring wealth”, Socialism, etc. This is a zero-sum game. Otherwise, many of us will go broke over time while they grow ever richer. It’s that simple. This is not class warfare. This is not social engineering. This is reality, people.
But based on some silly twisted philosophical perception that imposing disporportionately “higher” taxes on the rich is inherently unfair and “Socialist” in nature – which even Warren Buffet, the richest man in America, agrees is nonsense - we vote against our own self-interests, and vicariously support the ultra-rich getting richer. Why? Because we no longer recognize the fact that in the past, America always imposed a proportionally greater financial burden on it’s citizens who have prospered most from her bounty, and were blessed with the gift of wealth.
Against his own self-interest, President Obama readily accepts that duty, as well as the additional burden it imposes on his family, based on the time-honored American principle of self-sacrifice . . .
All for the good of the country.
NOTE: The gentleman pictured at the top of this post is none other than the richest man in America – Warren Buffet.
What’s the Big F@%King Deal Fox News? V.P. Biden Did Not Tell Anyone “Go F@%K Yourself”
Posted by Lance Haley in Bill O'Reilly, Conservatives, Cultural Issues, Culture Wars, Dick Cheney, Fox News, Government, Healthcare Reform, Media & Communication, Politics, Senate, White House on March 23rd, 2010

So Joe Biden speaks honestly with President Obama today when congratulating him over the passage of the Health Care Reform bill after the President signed-off on it today at the Whitehouse.
BFD!
Well, keeping in line with their usual hypocrisy, Fox News is all a “twitter” - YES, the pun is intended – over the “party-like” atmosphere surrounding the celebration of the President and the Democrats in achieving a step towards reforming the U.S. health care system. According to Fox and friends, you would think this was a drunken frat party. And from reading their viewers’ responses, you would think Biden’s comment was a blasphemy to the image of the Office of the President.
So how did Fox News treat Dick Cheney’s admonition to Senator Patrick Leahy to “Go F@%K Yourself”, while standing on the floor of the Senate Chamber in 2004?
Like no BFD . . .
In fact, on The O’Reilly Factor, Karl Rove and Bill O’Reilly rationalized away Cheney dropping the “F’ Bomb on Leahy because the Senator had previously called for an investigation of Bush Administration ties to Halliburton after the company was granted a “no-bid” contract for the re-construction of Iraq after the U.S. invasion in 2003. Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton from 1996-2000.
Yeah, Cheney, there was certainly no appearance of impropriety there. WTF???
However, Rove and O”Reilly NEVER referenced the rest of the story regarding Leahy’s attempt to address prior accusations – a veiled smear tactic – by Cheney and company that he (Leahy) was a bad Catholic. When Leahy approached Cheney in very a gentlemanly manner to inquire about that, Cheney gave his infamous response.
So where was Fox News’ indignation? Or their readers outrage?
Fox News is a F@%King Joke!
Having the final word over today’s meaningless flap, Whitehouse Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said it best when questioned about Biden’s comment:
“And yes Mr. Vice President, you’re right.”
Cindy Sheehan is “Dishonorably Discharged”
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Government, National Security, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, White House, al Qaida, foreign policy on March 22nd, 2010
Sheehan is the poster-girl for the U.S. anti-war movement that sprouted after the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq in March of 2003. Her son Casey was killed-in-action in Iraq in 2004, and within a year she became the leading figure in the Iraq War protests when she appeared on national television in the summer of 2005 near Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas when he was there on summer vacation.
While leading a protest in Washington, D.C. last weekend, Sheehan pointed a bullhorn at the Whitehouse and yelled, “Arrest that war criminal“, obviously calling for President Obama’s prosecution for war crimes because he has not yet ordered the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq. At that moment, Sheehan lost any credibility she may have garnered these past six years.
I opposed the war in Iraq from the day the Bush Administration launched it’s public relations offensive in support of that strategic disaster. Afghanistan was and always will be the right war. That is where the principle threat from terrorism exists, and no amount of debate will ever change that one simple fact.
Nor will the argument that Saddam Hussein was ever any strategic or regional threat to our national security. There were never any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was never any significant military capability in Iraq. Even our intelligence agencies knew that. After Desert Storm I in 1990, Saddam was reduced to the status of just another tin-horn dictator. Kim Jung Il of North Korea has always been a far greater threat to our nation with his long-range missiles and nuclear weapons. So why didn’t we attack him first?
Because Saddam did possess the one ”threat” to our national security that was of any real value - a big damn oil spigot. Dick Cheney wanted his hand on that faucet, so he set out to convince everyone around him that Hussein was the most dangerous man in the world – when the real danger to global security was right there in Cheney’s mirror. I believe Cheney and his minions are war criminals. There is no hiding my disdain for this man, and I believe he is one of the most evil persons of the 21st Century – Osama bin Laden, notwithstanding.
However, no amount of projection of Sheehan’s anger towards President Obama, simply because she disagrees with his decision to alter the time-table for withdrawal of troops from Iraq, will somehow magically transform him into a war criminal anymore than painting a thin mustache on his likeness will make him Hitler – as his Teabagger foes are prone to doing.
President Obama – like myself – believes we need to leave Iraq. President Obama – like myself – never supported the War in Iraq. President Obama – like myself – understands that undoing the failed war strategies of the previous Administration cannot be accomplished overnight.
Cindy Sheehan – when you metaphorically painted that little black mustache on President Obama’s upper lip last Saturday, you shot yourself in the foot. You are a disgrace to America.
Surrender your bullhorn, and go home.
Can Liz Cheney Really Keep America Safe?
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Conservatives, Crime & Punishment, Dick Cheney, Fox News, Legal & Justice, Media & Communication, National Security, Politics, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on March 11th, 2010

ATTICUS FINCH (Gregory Peck) in “TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD”
Hardly!
Why? Because she advocates the use of fear that rises to the level of McCarthyism, as demonstrated in the recent video released by her political organization, Keep America Safe.
A significant number of well-respected Conservatives have deeply criticized the video’s characterization of current Justice Department lawyers as Un-American because of their previous legal representation of suspected terrorist detainees. One of the greatest callings in the American legal system is defending both the unpopular and the guilty. This role is epitomized by the lawyer Atticus Finch in the movie “To Kill a Mockingbird“, rated as the best courtroom movie of all time by the American Film Institute.
Liz Cheney is a lawyer. If she attended her classes in law school, she should have a basic understanding of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as well as the principles of American Jurisprudence, all of which ensure due process for everyone who is charged with a violation of the laws of the United States, regardless of citizenship. Her failure to grasp those most fundamental principles of the American justice system only further undermines any semblance of credibility regarding her legal or political opinion.
One of her former law professors, the esteemed Richard A. Epstein, of the University of Chicago School of Law. said it best: “There’s something truly bizarre about this.” Which only begs the question: Is she a moron, or just pathologically shameless and void of any conscience? Maybe it runs in the family?
Most importantly, however, is the real reason why Liz Cheney cannot “Keep America Safe”.
If she relies on the argument that America was much safer from an attack by terrorists during her father’s tenure with the Bush Administration, one need look no further than the Presidential Daily Brief of August 6, 2001, titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”, in order to completely discredit this notion. Her father publicly admitted in May of 2002 on Fox News that he read the brief, and then attempted in vain to dismiss it’s warnings as inconclusive, while simultanously advocating that the brief not be released for public disclosure. Interesting . . .
As this author has pointed out in the post titled “Failing to Connect the Dots: The Lights Were Blinking Red“, that evidence is the most damning indictment of Dick Cheney’s part in the collective negligence of the Bush Administration’s failure to prevent the attacks on 9/11. No wonder he did not want you to read it’s contents. To compound matters even further was their colossal failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden at the battle of Tora Bora, Afghanistan in December of 2001. Simply put, Dick Cheney obviously has no valid standing to criticize the Obama Administration’s policies regarding terrorism and the prosecution of terrorists.
By extension, as well as by her own volition, neither does Liz Cheney.
Case closed.
Were Dick Cheney’s Chest Pains and Terrorist Najibullah Zazi’s Guilty Plea in NY Federal District Court Earlier Today Just a Coincidence?
Posted by Lance Haley in Conservatives, Crime & Punishment, Dick Cheney, Government, Legal & Justice, National Security, Politics, U.S. Attorney's Office, U.S. District Courts, War on Terror, al Qaida on February 22nd, 2010

It would take a really big washrag to wipe that huge grin off my face right now.
Click here and here – then read ScrewedUS.com Memo to Dick Cheney.
Don’t you just love life’s little ironies?
Memo To Dick Cheney: Me Thinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Conservatives, Dick Cheney, Politics, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on February 14th, 2010

Shoe Bomber Richard Reid – Poster Child for Dick Cheney’s Hypocrisy
This morning on NBC’s Meet the Press, Vice President Joe Biden responded to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s attacks on the Obama Administration’s handling of accused Christmas Day terrorist bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. As Biden accurately stated, Cheney is “”not entitled to rewrite history. He’s not entitled to his own facts“, correctly pointing out that the Bush Administration also prosecuted shoe bomber Richard Reid in a civilian court. This author just commented this past week on the duplicity with which you and other Republicans are terrorizing the American people over this nonsense, after your Administration tried over 150 terrorists in civilians courts – including one of the 9/11 co-conspirators.
This blog contains a number of entries addressing Cheney’s constant attacks on the current Administration, and why he has absolutely no standing to criticize Obama; particularly because of the hypocrisy pertaining to the decisions and policies of the Bush Administration – specifically, their failure to prevent the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and the subsequent blunder that led to Osama bin Laden’s escape from Tora Bora, Afghanistan ninety days later.
Playing armchair psychologist is fraught with dangers of misdiagnosis, as well as the tendency towards over-generalization of certain symptoms as definitive indicators of a specific pathology. Nevertheless, and admittedly at the risk of the cognitive dissonance in ignoring my own advice to the contrary, I will venture a psychological explanation on why Dick Cheney’s persistent revisionist history reveals the depth of his pathological dissonance. Which may be why Cheney is rated the most unpopular Vice President in modern history – even surpassing Dan Quayle (say it ain’t so Dick).
“If an action has been completed and cannot be undone, then the after-the-fact dissonance compels us to change our beliefs.” What most often occurs in the aftermath of undeniable factual evidence of an action that betrays our personal beliefs or opinions is a growing increase in dissonance in direct relationship to “the importance of the subject to us, how strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict, and our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.
In other words, when we cannot reconcile our beliefs and opinions with the undeniable existence of facts that contradicts them, we defend our position even more zealously. Denial of the Holocaust by people like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – who ironically may be Jewish - is a stark example of this behavior.
It is William Shakespeare’s often misquoted poetic commentary [as in the body of the subject line of this entry] that is the most famous historical observation on this human condition:
“The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.”
Homer Simpson Republicans Terrorize U.S. Over Terrorists’ Trials
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Conservatives, Dick Cheney, How and Why We Get Screwed, Politics, Sarah Palin, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on February 7th, 2010
Terrorism is about creating fear.
Republicans are now clearly trying to create fear in the minds of the American public about the Obama Administration’s prosecution of terrorists in civilian courts. They are insinuating several things: one, that terrorists are “enemy combatants”, and therefore should be tried in military courts; two, that allowing them to be tried in civilian courts will only invite another attack on U.S. soil; third that these defendants are not entitled to any constitutional rights; and finally, that Obama is soft on terrorism.
These constitutional law geniuses include half-term Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), former Vice President Dick Cheney (Chief Republican Hypocrite – Washington, D.C.), and Chief Conservative spokesman Rush Limbaugh (former drug addict, and college drop-out).
Amazing how incensed these Conservatives are about this “recent” decision to take accused terrorists to trial in civilian courts, particularly after the Bush Administration tried over ONE HUNDRED FIFTY terrorists in the same federal courts, including such high-profile cases as 9/11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and shoe bomber Richard Reid.
Just in case any of you other hypocrites out there have also conveniently forgotten, Reid was going to blow up a plane on an international flight bound for the U.S.
“D’oh“!
P.S. Since yesterday, when this was posted, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has proposed cutting off federal funding for terrorists trials in civil court. Add his name to the rapidly growing list of Homer Simpson constitutional law geniuses and conservative hypocrites.
Obama’s Answer to Battling Terrorism – Terrorist Profiling?
Posted by Lance Haley in Conservatives, Cultural Issues, Dick Cheney, National Security, Race, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on January 7th, 2010

Today President Obama is addressing the security lapses that occurred regarding the attempted terrorist bombing on Christmas Day in order to ensure the American public that his Administration is taking the proper steps to review and remedy the procedures that led to inaction on the information that was provided to security agencies, as well as silence his critics. Johnathan Alter of Newsweek even went so far as to suggest that the President needs to negotiate with Dick Cheney in order to get him to stop criticizing the Administration on it’s War on Terror.
That is utter nonsense. Dick Cheney is a hypocrite, as Alter himself acknowledges, and thereby irrelevant in his lame attempts to critique this Administration.
More to the point is Howard Fineman’s intelligent and inciteful essay in Newsweek noting that President Obama has several options to battle terrorism, suggesting one that I have long been philosophically opposed to on the principle of protecting the constitutional rights of individuals: profiling terrorists. Why, you might ask would I oppose this tactic? Before you prejudge my reasoning – “oh, this is just more Liberal gobbly-gook” - try reading clear to the end of this post. You just might be surprised by my conclusions.
The reason for my opposition to any type of profiling is the overwhelming evidence that there is a significant and unwarranted risk that it will ultimately result in few arrests and too many innocent people being wrongfully detained or otherwise unfairly targeted by security and law enforcement, and which has been scientifically proven to be both ineffective, as well as a waste of precious time and resources. That does not even speak to the “human cost” of targeting innocent people.
Moreover, law enforcement officials are widely known to rely on a multitude of nonsensical reasons under the guise of “reasonable suspicion” – which is not ironically the legal standard for a lawful search and seizure – as a legal basis for stopping someone because the officer thinks they may be involved in a crime. Many people would say, “well, so what . . . we have to sacrifice the emotional security of a few for the personal security of the many.”
This argument has been forwarded for over a century subsequent to a long line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding individuals 4th Amendment right to be free from unlawful search and seizure. Very few Americans have any real indepth knowledge as to the historical basis for this fundamental right recognized by our founding fathers, as well as a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of case law protecting us from unwarranted and excessive intrusions upon our privacy by agents of the government.
But I digress from the central point of the issue of terrorist profiling.
Although I will always remain highly skeptical of law enforcement offficer’s motivations and justifications as a result of my professional experience (I have caught too many of them lying in court, while under oath), there just might be a reasoned and measured manner for accomplishing our national security objectives with a modicum of protection for the innocent. On the other hand, no one should pretend that profiling will easily identify and stop those who intend to kill innocent people and terrorize us. There are no simplistic solutions to this difficult and contentious issue.
The deeds of evil men are rarely so apparent until after they are completed.


