Tag Archives: dick cheney

Special Comment! Michael Vick.

vick

Okay!  I have basically had it up to here with white people.  Once again, they want to change the rules as to the way things work.  O.J. Simpson got acquitted of murder and the predominately black jury was criticized as being stupid and uniformed.  George W. Bush and Dick Cheney invaded Iraq, perhaps killing millions of innocent civilians.  Yet, they walk around as free men.  Idiots to most, heroes to some.  They still need to be brought to justice for their crimes against humanity.  Sarah Palin shoots wolves from helicopters and thinks that polar bears are the new niggers of Alaska but where is the outrage?  I am mad as hell right now and white people and PETA can suck my meat eating dick!

I want to be perfectly clear here!  What Michael Vick did was wrong and vile.  But he paid his debt to society and thus, should be offered all of the rights and privileges of a free man.  Yesterday, Vick signed a two year contract with the Philadelphia Eagles and white folks and PETA have lost their fucking minds (not for the first time).  Here is PETA’s statement concerning the signing of Michael Vick:

PETA and millions of decent football fans around the world are disappointed that the Philadelphia Eagles have chosen to sign a man who hanged dogs from trees, electrocuted them with jumper cables, held them underwater until they drowned in his swimming pool, and even threw his own family dogs into the fighting pit to be torn to shreds while he laughed. What sort of message does this send to young fans who care about animals and don’t want to see them be harmed?

PETA certainly hopes that Vick has learned his lesson and feels truly remorseful for his crimes—but since he’s given no public indication that that’s the case, only time will tell. At this point, all Eagles fans can do is cross their fingers and hope that they won’t ever have to explain to their sons and daughters what a “rape rack” is and why their favorite player was using one, as Falcons fans once had to.

Please pay particular attention to the language in the PETA statement!  How in the hell can Peta speak for the millions of “decent” football fans across the country?  Does that make those of us who want to see the American dream realized indecent?  Keep in mind that a few weeks ago, PETA was calling for Michael Vick to undergo a brain scan to see if he was truly remorseful.  That’s akin to giving George W. Bush a brain scan to search for intelligence.  The very concept in and of itself is ridiculous.  I have nothing against advocacy groups but PETA would rather you be eaten alive by mosquitoes than have a truck come by and spray their blood sucking asses back to the swamp.

My point is this!  In America, we live by a systems of laws.  If you break the law, you suffer the consequences!  Michael Vick suffered the consequences by spending nearly two years in a federal penitentiary.  Most convicted felons on average, will never command a six figure salary upon their release.  Should Vick be penalized because he can run fast and throw a ball?  I don’t think so!  Two time Super Bowl champ Ben Roethlisberger is accused of raping a woman and I don’t hear anybody calling for him to be banned from playing football or being forced to undergo a brain scan!  Could it be that because he is a white man and his victim was not a dog that nobody gives a damn?

Post Script:  I normally do not approve of using the “N” word but thought that it was appropriate for emphasis for this comment.

Advertisements

8 Comments

Filed under Society, Sports

Daily Show — Dick (Uncut)!

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Daily Show — Dick (Uncut)“, posted with vodpod

 

4 Comments

Filed under Humor and Satire, Politics

Dick Cheney on Same Sex Marriage!

gameday2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I first saw this, 911 had to be called to revive me.  There is no way in hell that I can believe that Dick Cheney supports same sex marriage.  He even referred to his daughter as being gay which in and of itself is quit amazing.  I was quite sure that for all of her life she thought he name was “Evil Dyke American Hating Gay Terrorist Daughter of Lesbos Enemy of God, Go Fuck Yourself Bitch!”  As we all know, Republicans hate fags.  It’s in their manifesto.  But despite all that, I believe that even Dick Cheney could not hate one of his children.  That is of course unless her lesbian lover was a Muslim.

What could possibly make the most evil man on earth suddenly accept the concept of gay marriage.  That will be debated by scholars for years to come but I have my own theory.  I believe that Dick Cheney was abducted by sadistic aliens who performed all types of sexual experiments on him.  Through all of the anal probes he was subjected to, he came to believe that the penis was no longer a weapon of ass destruction.

The Associated Mess has learned that so sincere is Cheney that he plans to march in this year’s New York City Gay Pride Day Parade.  He plans to march in nothing more than a rainbow diaper and stop at Donna Karan’s Boutique and purchase a Tinky Winky inspired purple handbag.  Asked why he has made such a dramatic change in policy Mr. Cheney replied: “Look you stupid moron, until you have had an anal suppository placed in you ass, you just can’t possibly understand, now go fuck yourself!”  Our reporter gently declined the request.

DaddyDickCheney

 

As our reporter started to pack his gear, Cheney was overheard to say “You’ve got a really nice ass and if you ever want to explore your sexuality, just give Uncle Dick a call.  We can arrange to meet discreetly and have a really good time!”   Our incredulous reporter asked Mr. Cheney if he were serious to which he resoundingly replied “Oh Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees!

4 Comments

Filed under Humor and Satire, Religion, Society

The Darker Side!

gameday2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ord_vader_1024 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

President George W. Bush on the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture – June, 26, 2003 –

“The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example.  I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. . . . Nowhere should the midnight knock foreshadow a nightmare of state-commissioned crime.  The suffering of torture victims must end, and the United States calls on all governments to assume this great mission.”

I am still shocked at all the relevations of torture and abuses perpetrated by the CIA and American military of detainees during this ridiculous War on Terrorism.  I think it has gone about as well as The War on Drugs and the War on Keeping Fat People Out of McDonalds.  But I have been troubled the last few days over President Obama’s refusal to release the rest of the alleged detainee torture photos.  His reasoning is sound stating that there is no need to further endanger American troops in Iran and Afghanistan.  I buy that argument under the premise that we were assured that the photos are no worse than the photos already released.

But logic dictates that that there is something faulty with the premise.  If the photos are no more malevolent than those previously released, then what is the problem of releasing them?  Retired Army General Antonio Taguba who investigated Abu Ghraib in 2004 told the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph newspaper that the remaing photos show images of  “torture, abuse, rape, and every indecency.”  Two of the alleged photos are said to depict a male U.S. soldier raping a female prisoner while another has a male U.S. translator raping a male prisoner.  Other assaults are said to include a trucnheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

Of course the Pentagon has denied these allegations saying that the Telegraph had misquoted General Taguba.  The alarm level was raised even furhter when White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs went on to slam the reliability of the Telegraph.  My only question is what reason would a retired flag officer from the Army have to lie?  And why is the White House so vehemently trying to paint the Telegraph as some sort of National Enquirer.  The only answer is to release the remaining photographs.  The Obama Administration came in with a message of transparency.  My only hope is that they don’t become the Orwellian Ministry of Truth!  Winston Smith worked for the Bush Administration.

4 Comments

Filed under Politics

Dick Goes Waterboarding!

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Dick Goes Waterboarding!“, posted with vodpod

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Humor and Satire, Politics

Obama Vice!

gameday2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dick_Cheney

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slate Magazine
war stories

Send Him Back to the Bunker!

Dick Cheney’s dishonest speech about torture, terror, and Obama.

By Fred Kaplan

Why does anyone still listen to what Dick Cheney has to say?

This morning’s back-to-back speeches on torture and terrorism—first by President Barack Obama, then by the former vice president—could have been an opportunity to weigh competing arguments, examine their premises, and chart an agenda for a serious debate.

Obama’s speech did exactly that. He spelled out his logic, backed up his talking points with facts, and put forth a policy grounded—at least in his view—not just in lofty ideals but also in hardheaded assessments of national security. Those who disagree with his conclusions could come away at least knowing where their paths diverged—what claims they’d need to challenge in mounting their opposition.

Cheney, on the other hand, built a case on straw men, red herrings, and lies. In short, his speech was classic Dick Cheney, with all the familiar scowls and scorn intact. The Manichean worldview, which Cheney advanced and enforced while in office, was on full display. After justifying “enhanced interrogation methods,” as part of the Bush administration’s “comprehensive strategy” in the wake of 9/11—and noting that the next seven and a half years saw no follow-on attack—he said this:

So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions, and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event … and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort.

This is a blatant evasion. The debate—or one of the debates—is, in fact, over whether or not the war on terror required “tough interrogations,” as Cheney called them. Does he believe—should anyone else believe—that removing one chunk of this strategy would cause the whole edifice to topple? If these interrogations are so essential, why did President Bush stop them in 2004? And why haven’t we been attacked since?

Cheney’s evasiveness is more basic than this. He still refuses to acknowledge what nearly everyone else has: that these interrogations did amount to torture. “Torture was never permitted,” he said, even while conceding the occasional water-boarding. These methods, he noted, “were given careful legal review before they were approved”—ignoring that these legal reviews were conducted by his own aides and have since been discredited almost uniformly.

Still, he persists. To call this program “torture,” he went on, “is to libel the dedicated professionals”—the “carefully chosen” CIA personnel who conducted the interrogations—”and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims.” Of course, it does no such thing. Most of the criticisms, including President Obama’s, have been directed at the Bush administration’s top policymakers, not at those who carried out their orders. And nobody is claiming that the subjects of interrogation were “victims,” much less “innocent.” To decry torture does not imply the slightest sympathy for the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Cheney then dismissed the idea—hardly Obama’s alone—that the interrogation policies and the detention operations at Guantanamo have served as a “recruitment tool” for al-Qaida and other terrorists. This claim, he said, “excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left: We brought it on ourselves.”

This is nonsense on a few levels. Nobody is claiming that Osama Bin Laden and his crew would go away if we treated prisoners more nicely. However, it is indisputable that the reports of torture, the photos from Abu Ghraib, and the legal limbo at Guantanamo have galvanized al-Qaida’s recruitment campaigns. Everyone acknowledges this, hardly just “the Left.” It’s why many Republicans lamented the news stories and the photographs—because they might help the enemy.

Cheney’s next volley against Obama—for releasing the Bush administration’s legal documents that justified water-boarding and other harsh practices—was where the outright lying began. “President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation, should he deem it appropriate,” Cheney said. Yet, this authority would have little use because, thanks to the release of the documents, “the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against.”

This argument might make sense, except that Obama has not reserved the right to use enhanced interrogation. In fact, he has explicitly, repeatedly, and unconditionally banned the practice. In his speech this morning, Obama said there was no security risk in releasing the Bush documents precisely because they no longer reflect U.S. policy.

Finally, Cheney pounded Obama for wanting to investigate and possibly prosecute, on criminal charges, those who approved and conducted the enhanced interrogations. Or, rather, he employed semantic sleight of hand—another long-standing Cheney technique—to suggest that this is what Obama wants. At first, Cheney said, “Over on the left wing of the president’s party … some are … demanding” such prosecutions. In the next sentence, he said, “It’s hard to imagine a worse precedent … than to have an incoming administration criminalizing the policy decisions of its predecessors.” (Italics added.)

By conflating “the left wing of the president’s party” with the “incoming administration,” Cheney aimed to leave the impression a) that Obama is left wing and b) that he is pushing for show trials.

This isn’t just sneaky—it’s wrong. First, as many left-wing Democrats have begun to discover, Obama is no leftist. Second, in his speech today, Obama clearly rejected the idea of prosecutions. Decrying “a return of the politicization of these issues” on both sides of the spectrum, Obama said, “I have no interest in spending our time relitigating the policies of the last eight years.”

However, in the course of inveighing against official inquiries (perhaps because, if they ever took place, he would certainly find himself in the docket), Cheney also condemned an idea that—if he is telling the truth—would serve his interests. This is the idea of convening a “Truth Commission,” and it may be the one idea that might settle the only legitimate question that Cheney raised in his speech: Does torture work? Or, to put it another way: Should a president take the option of torture irrevocably off the table? Are there circumstances under which he might want to put it back on?

Cheney’s main point, in his speech and in other recent statements, is that torture (even if he doesn’t want to call it that) works; that it squeezed important information out of the few “high-value” terrorists on whom it was inflicted; that this information saved thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of lives; that there are documents supporting this claim, and that Obama should declassify and release them.

Obama disputes this point. “As commander-in-chief,” he said in his speech this morning, “I see the intelligence … and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation.”

The preponderance of available evidence supports Obama’s side of the argument: that torture does not work; that, to the extent it does get someone to talk, what he says is often untrue; that some al-Qaida terrorists were water-boarded several times a day, for up to a month, and still didn’t provide the information that top Bush officials wanted them to say; and that the most useful information was gained through more creative, less violent means.

But look: We—meaning those of us who don’t have special, compartmentalized security clearances—don’t know, can’t possibly know, the full story. Were there cases in which CIA interrogators learned a lot by torturing a prisoner? Did those revelations save lives? Could the information have been acquired through other means?

The objections to torture—expressed not just by President Obama, but by many others, including Sen. John McCain and nearly every senior U.S. military officer who has spoken out on the subject—may well hold, even if it happens that torture did “work” on a few occasions.

But this debate is far from over. Today’s two speeches are more likely to intensify than settle the controversy. What’s wrong with assembling a truth commission, an independent body empowered to examine all the documents and subpoena witnesses, behind firmly closed doors? Cheney said at the start of the speech that his successors’ policies should be based on “a truthful telling of history.” Let the telling begin.

http://www.slate.com/id/2218762/pagenum/all/#p2

5 Comments

Filed under Politics

Dick Cheney is a Terminator!

Leave a comment

Filed under Humor and Satire