Dick Cheney made headlines last week at CPAC, the big ultra-conservative fiesta in Washington, by claiming that the Obama administration has made the U.S. less safe by halting the practice of torture and wanting to try the Underwear Bomber in civilian court. Sunday, Cheney got smacked around pretty good on the political talk shows by Colin Powell and Gen. David Petraeus.
Powell was asked by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation about Cheney’s claims that Obama has hurt national security, and replied quickly that, “I don’t know where the claim comes [from].” He went on to strongly defend the use of civilian courts to try terrorists (as every other civilized country does, by the way — and effectively), and essentially called Cheney a liar, saying of the former VP’s charges, “I don’t think that’s borne out by the facts.”
What I’d like to know is how anyone can take seriously anything Cheney says about national security or foreign policy, especially considering that the guy was wrong about nearly everything during the Iraq disaster (anyone remember “we’ll be greeted as liberators,” “the insurgency is in its last throes,” “waterboarding is a no-brainer,” and on and on and on?)
Petraeus, the leader of U.S. Central Command, appearing on Meet The Press, said he continues to be against using torture in interrogations, as he has publicly stated since 2003. “I think that whenever we’ve taken expedient measures, they’ve turned around and bitten us in the backside,” Petraeus explained. He then reiterated that the interrogation methods in the Army field manual actually work, whereas torture-induced “confessions” have usually proven to be worthless. In addition, Petraeus made it clear that he still supports closing down Guantanamo.
In short, Powell (Mr. Desert Storm), and Petraeus, George W. Bush’s favorite general – guys who actually know a lot about the military and counterterrorism – think Cheney’s ideas are terrible. Here’s my question: What does it say about the current state of the far-right that the CPAC crowd roared and cheered Cheney’s B.S., and even urged him to run for President? Answer: It means, as we’ve been saying here for months, that they have genuinely gone off the political deep end. Here’s Powell on Face The Nation:
This article appears in Feb 16-22, 2010.
As far as I’m concerned both Cheney and Powell are liars with blood on their hands. They lied and got gullible, public-school educated americans to believe their phony case for a war in Iraq.
CPAC was almost a waste of time until Ron Paul came on and won the straw poll for president at CPAC.
Thank goodness for the internet where truth is spreading like wildfire.
Cheney is a liar, a crook and a chickenhawk fraud who accepted a series of deferments rather than serve in the military himself.
So naturally he “resonates” with the brainless lemmings who dominate the GOP.
BTW, these conservative gatherings are beginning to resemble well-dressed Klan rallies. The U.S. is one-third non-white but try finding a non-white face at CPAC or Tea Party events.
This current right-wing lollapalooza will flame out soon enough, just like it always does.
CPAC is indeed a thoughtful organization, but they’re the kind of thoughts we’d be better off without. These are people who simply hate the idea of rule of law. Illegal surveillance? It’s not illegal if the president does it! Illegal torture? Waterboarding isn’t torture (anymore), because we’ve redefined torture to mean “torture to death”! Accountability? Fine, as long as it’s convenient and doesn’t inhibit secrecy at the highest levels of government! Treaties? They’re great, but remember that the President can do whatever he wants, like it says in Article cough cough of the Constitution!
Ah Frank, always good to hear another lily-white douchebag tell minorities what their problem is. I guess that’s why thoughtful organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi parties never invited minorities to join. Unless as victims at their periodic lynchings.
That’s because Frank Griffin is nothing but a man child who does nothing but push lies and propaganda. Go back and look and you’ll see he trolls this site doing nothing but disagreeing and posting lies – all against Democrats and Obama.
He’s even made threatening comments against the President. That’s right! So, don’t worry your head about Frank Griffin. Just a lot of hot air telling people how something is, but really is just the opposite. Most Americans think that Republicans are racist liars and warmongers, just like Dick Cheney. If Frank were ever to step out from behind his computer, he would probably have the living hell beat out of him by everyone. He will burn in Hell for this.
As mentioned previously in other threads, Frank exhibits several characteristics of the classic narcissist. I’ll list a few of them below:
1. Has a childlike need to draw attention to himself.
2. Has a childlike need to proclaim “victories” that exist only in his head.
3. Has a grandiose, yet wholly unearned, sense of self importance.
4. Is mainly driven by deep-seated feelings of inadequacy and insecurity.
4. Fantasizes that those who disagree with him are inferior in intellect and moral character.
5. Lacks empathy.
6. Refuses to acknowledge the validity of counter opinions.
One need only look at Frank’s posts to see a consistent pattern of such characteristics. There has been speculation that Frank is a deeply conflicted and insecure person. I tend to agree. As to reasons, I would not venture to guess. I can, however, say with certainty that Frank has more than his share of personal issues.
In any event, he is not to be taken seriously by those wishing to engage in civil or enlightened discourse. Frank’s main goal is to validate his own opinions. Whenever an alternate view is presented, he reacts with a passive aggressive anger and disdain. Again, this is a common trait among narcissists.
My advice to those who are offended by Frank is to ignore him. That, more than anything, is what he fears the most.
Also, Frank’s a clueless dickwad. Let us not forget that!
As mentioned previously in other threads, Frank exhibits several characteristics of the classic narcissist. I’ll list a few of them below:
1. Has a childlike need to draw attention to himself.
2. Has a childlike need to proclaim “victories” that exist only in his head.
3. Has a grandiose, yet wholly unearned, sense of self importance.
4. Is mainly driven by deep-seated feelings of inadequacy and insecurity.
4. Fantasizes that those who disagree with him are inferior in intellect and moral character.
5. Lacks empathy.
6. Refuses to acknowledge the validity of counter opinions.
One need only look at Frank’s posts to see a consistent pattern of such characteristics. There has been speculation that Frank is a deeply conflicted and insecure person. I tend to agree. As to reasons, I would not venture to guess. I can, however, say with certainty that Frank has more than his share of personal issues.
In any event, he is not to be taken seriously by those wishing to engage in civil or enlightened discourse. Frank’s main goal is to validate his own opinions. Whenever an alternate view is presented, he reacts with a passive aggressive anger and disdain. Again, this is a common trait among narcissists.
My advice to those who are offended by Frank is to ignore him. That, more than anything, is what he fears the most
For those of you who don’t understand Frank’s mangled verbal skills, his last post amounts to the following:
“I know you are but what am I?”
Or:
“I am rubber, you are glue; what bounces off me sticks to you.”
Good day.
As mentioned previously in other threads, Frank exhibits several characteristics of the classic narcissist. I’ll list a few of them below:
1. Has a childlike need to draw attention to himself.
2. Has a childlike need to proclaim “victories” that exist only in his head.
3. Has a grandiose, yet wholly unearned, sense of self importance.
4. Is mainly driven by deep-seated feelings of inadequacy and insecurity.
4. Fantasizes that those who disagree with him are inferior in intellect and moral character.
5. Lacks empathy.
6. Refuses to acknowledge the validity of counter opinions.
One need only look at Frank’s posts to see a consistent pattern of such characteristics. There has been speculation that Frank is a deeply conflicted and insecure person. I tend to agree. As to reasons, I would not venture to guess. I can, however, say with certainty that Frank has more than his share of personal issues.
In any event, he is not to be taken seriously by those wishing to engage in civil or enlightened discourse. Frank’s main goal is to validate his own opinions. Whenever an alternate view is presented, he reacts with a passive aggressive anger and disdain. Again, this is a common trait among narcissists.
My advice to those who are offended by Frank is to ignore him. That is what he fears the most.