Dick Cheney a.k.a. Darth Vader

a reply to: Mirthful Me

Forgive my ignorance. You are correct in saying that current events, as pertain to Dick Cheney, are not my forte. I haven't owned a television for a few years. I would have been correct a couple of years ago. As a registered organ donor, I wonder if I can add the condition that under no circumstances may the heart of my dead body be used in that rat bastard. The sooner he becomes worm food the better, in my opinion.

a reply to: the owlbear

I just finished Robert Gates book, (He was SecDef for both Bush and Obama) and he doesn't paint Cheney in a good light. He does have good words for both Obama and Bush, but you can tell that he wasn't enamored with either Staff and advisers.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I don't think it was strictly to walk away with cash. I think it had to do with control of oil resources.

The road to war with Iraq began being discussed in January of 2001, PRIOR to 9/11. There is documentation that supports this. 9/11 was convenient. Whether one believes it was an "inside job" or not, it was used to promote war with Iraq through manufactured (nonexistent) connections between Iraq and 9/11.

All of us knew it but couldn't prove it. Now we can prove it. Newly declassified documents published at the National Security Archive prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bush administration planned to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq as early as January, 2001, and were making strategic plans and resource allocations as early as November, 2001.

January 30, 2001 – Bush administration principals (agency heads) meet for the
first time and discuss the Middle East, including Bush’s intention to disengage from the Israel-Palestine peace process and “How Iraq is destabilizing the region.” Bush directs Rumsfeld and JCS chairman Hugh Shelton to examine military options for Iraq; CIA director George Tenet is directed to improve intelligence on the country. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke are both struck by the emphasis on confronting Iraq, an aim consistent with Rumsfeld’s hiring of Wolfowitz and later Feith, well known for their bellicosity on the issue, for high-level Pentagon
positions. (Source: EBB/Franks Timeline (PDF))

When did we invade Afghanistan? Oh, that's right...it was October 7, 2001.

Source

And from the same source:

Here's the punchline, courtesy of the National Security Archive summary:

At this point, the weight of evidence supports an observation made in April 2002 by members of the covert Iraq Operations Group – Iraq “regime change” was already on Bush’s agenda when he took office in January 2001. (Note 33) September 11 was not the motivation for the U.S. invasion of Iraq – it was a distraction from it.

Yes, Dick Cheney is unapologetic and tough. He doesn't care. Period. Personally, I don't think that makes him refreshingly honest. It just means that he has no conscience about what he has done, who's been hurt, and he doesn't give a flip because he got his. Whatever. I'm not a fan. (This is, IMO, of course.) Now, I don't know the man personally. It's easy to put up an image of someone based on what we believe them to be and label it simplistically "good" or "evil." People are rarely so easily definable. I think its clear that, in his moral universe, whatever that may be, Mr. Cheney sees himself as in the right.

I just don't live in that same universe.


- AB

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: OFFTHEGRID
Dick Cheney- The man responsible for so much wrong in this world it makes my blood boil. You've heard what I think about this capitalist crony for-hire, but I want to know what you think?

I think a lot of the conjecture and amusing hatred against the man is the result of sour grapes more than anything else. It's not that he's more "evil" than most of the other politicians in DC, because he isn't. It's not that he's more corrupt, because they're all corrupt. It's the fact that he has a quick mind, a sharp tongue, and is completely shameless, always willing to shrug his shoulders at criticism and whining against him along with showing both middle fingers to those most ruffled against him.

He's a fantastic heel. Personally, I have no beef with the man and find his total lack of phoney supplication to manufactured public outrage to be refreshing.

So you appear to respect and have no beef with corruption that knows it's corrupt, is shameless, and laughs and sticks its middle fingers out at you because it knows it's untouchable. That's just weirder than weird.

Some levels of corruption are far, far worse than others.

a reply to: TDawgRex

An interesting read...

I thought Richard Clarke's book seemed more genuine. He was ignored time and again even though he had what became known as "actionable intelligence" (I really hate jingoism...thats like Fox News using the redundant "homicide bomber")

His reward was a one way ticket to obscurity.
As for Gates, I dont think it wise to move the Sec Def to Head of the secret police...just something off about that somehow and a little unsettling.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
I don't buy the 9/11 was an inside job crap. I've watched all the little documentaries, I've turned my head the direction the little documentarians have asked me to turn my head in, I've tried to ignore all the holes and breaks the little filmmakers have asked me to ignore lest their theories appear even more implausible... and I simply can't connect the dots that the feds were behind 9/11.

That's primarily because "all the little documentaries" are likely to have been based on flawed information from a deflected point of view. This far out, going on 13 years, we have the benefit of hindsight and research on which to gauge the credibility and source of many of the core "theories" of the Truth movement.

For example" We now know the founding "9/11 Truth Movement" group, which started in St. Mark's church in Manhattan was heavily influenced by at least one (probably more) provocateurs.

We also now know the source of the "Frenchman's video" that originally thrust the no-plane at the Pentagon theory into Internet awareness was a provocateur and fraudulent.

This is the conspiracy within the conspiracy... much of the direction in which the "9/11 Truth Movement" wen,t with reckless abandon, was based on fabricated extravagances from sources now known to be not just suspect, but most likely classic COINTELPRO.

How can a group so woefully inept and so horribly incompetent magically pull off the most complex conspiracy in history... and do so in the information age, without being laid bleached bone bare to the world? Answer: They can't... so logic dictates that sometimes a cigar is just that, a cigar.

The logical answer, if one is still to entertain the notion that government complicity is probable, is that they didn't... not on their own.

Following that logic leads down a well-traveled path on which most of history's proven conspiracies travel -- a small group of well-protected and deeply entrenched operatives manipulated their assets in such a way as to achieve the desired outcome. That's the kind of path that traditional investigative journalists would research with relentless energy. However, the chaos that became "9/11 conspiracy theories" ensured that even the broadest of strokes that define this more logical path were completely off-limits to such journalists.

I forgive Mr Cheney and everyone else that I have been angry with for all these years. It doesn't really matter in the end what he did or didn't do, what matters is if we can let it go within our hearts. That's the only real thing we can change, ourselves.

I agree it's good that people debate about his politics and explore his history, but we should be careful to realize that the judgement we pass on others can easily return to us unexpectedly. Anyone alive today has had it happen plenty of times I'm sure, so I bet most relate to it.

I have no ill will left for Cheney, Bush, or any of them...
I hope they can find forgiveness and happiness one day, as everyone deserves.

After we are all dead my words will make perfect sense, if they don't yet.

Don't let "Darth Vader" turn you to the dark side...it's not too late.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I have no doubt you're right on some of that, at least in theory of the coopting of the "truth" movement. I don't buy the COINTELPRO stuff, however. I think it a lot more likely that it was PT Barnum types, conmen who stood to personally gain money and/or fame through manipulation of the easily manipulatable. You and I both know there is/was a large contingency of "support all the theories or you're an official story whore" people in the 4-5 years following 9/11. A man could sit on a panel and agree with the thermite theory, agree with the stand down/drill exercise theory, and agree with the plane was shot down theory and then dare to say the "no plane" theory at the Pentagon was "ridiculous" and have the entire panel turn on him like rabid dogs. That is indicative of people with a major need, a need to feel part of a group, a need to feel like they're "in the know", and a need to be acknowledged for cracking some mysterious code... they didn't know what happened, they just wanted to make sure everybody believed it was something other than the dastardly "official story." Those people became the tools the manipulators used. Some of the more famous manipulators are making serious money off it still to this day, Alex Jones is but one example...

I also agree 100% with your media assessment. That one is also still very much alive today, with mainstream media quickly falling into line behind official stories on legitimate government coverups and propaganda like those evil Russians, Assad being guilty in complete absence of evidence, and particularly the relationship between Edward Snowden and an American media that not only tries to bury his truths, but has adopted the "Snowden the traitor" mantra for all reporting on him. Again, however, if it is so brutally obvious now... 13 years later, that the media is doing this for their masters, wouldn't have been even more obvious in 2001 when they were fairly wet behind the ears in that practice?

originally posted by: muzzleflash
I forgive Mr Cheney and everyone else that I have been angry with for all these years. It doesn't really matter in the end what he did or didn't do, what matters is if we can let it go within our hearts. That's the only real thing we can change, ourselves.

I agree it's good that people debate about his politics and explore his history, but we should be careful to realize that the judgement we pass on others can easily return to us unexpectedly. Anyone alive today has had it happen plenty of times I'm sure, so I bet most relate to it.

I have no ill will left for Cheney, Bush, or any of them...
I hope they can find forgiveness and happiness one day, as everyone deserves.

After we are all dead my words will make perfect sense, if they don't yet.

Don't let "Darth Vader" turn you to the dark side...it's not too late.

Muzz...I want to preface this by saying I Love and respect all of your posts. Most hold the Insight and deeper Understanding that is needed by All. But where is the line?
Do you forgive Hitler and his crew?
Stalin? Pol Pot?
The Holy Roman Catholic Pedophilia cabal?

Forgiveness is a Virtue of the Ultimate Compassion, but without Dark there is no light...where is the line drawn between the Light and the Dark?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

...no one in any type of major media COULD question the official story. Remember Tim Russert saying in front of a congressional panel that he would be awarded special access to the Bush Administration for his complicity in pushing their war movement?
Then the speech..."You're either with us, or against us".
Patriot Act...you know more than I do...

Something isn't right. But to say otherwise is to be branded a heretic even if you are/were an investigative journalist with decades of results...
I back your opinion. I dont know if anyone will really know what happened that day. All we do know is the outcome...but that is another thread.

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

"If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003)

In 1991, the US bombed Iraq for 40 straight days. It then maintained a no-fly zone and sanctions until the next attack in 2003.

Yet we're supposed to believe that Saddam somehow managed to acquire WMDs...

If Saddam did acquire WMDs, he got them from the US.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Now that's real. Nice.

I've come to appreciate the hardcores in the 2 parties. It's been a big switch from the old riled up Ron Paulian down with the deficit stuff I used to care about. Now I don't care about the BS and that's what it takes to understand and see through the BS. I don't care just like them, we all don't care together and that's what makes us such a great team called America, the really real America.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
I have no doubt you're right on some of that, at least in theory of the coopting of the "truth" movement. I don't buy the COINTELPRO stuff, however. I think it a lot more likely that it was PT Barnum types, conmen who stood to personally gain money and/or fame through manipulation of the easily manipulatable.

All it took was a few nudges in the right direction with juicy sensational tidbits. The inevitable hucksters took it from there.

That is indicative of people with a major need, a need to feel part of a group, a need to feel like they're "in the know", and a need to be acknowledged for cracking some mysterious code... they didn't know what happened, they just wanted to make sure everybody believed it was something other than the dastardly "official story."

It's that and deeper.

In the early days, the ranks of "9/11 Truth" -- as it spread from St. Mark's church in NYC -- were filled primarily by the anarchists who formerly protested the World Bank, not traditional "conspiracy theorists." So the early mix of personalities were people predisposed to believe nearly anything as long as it described vast evil conspiracies by the government. Traditional conspiracy theorists tended to think smaller.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
The difference between him and, say a John Kerry, is that Cheney doesn't make an ass of himself stammering and stuttering when somebody calls him out on his financial connections.
He.Doesn't.Care... and that drives people nuts.

I think it is more the case that he has no shame nor a twinkling of any moral fiber in his being.
Some try to cover it up or change the subject or downplay because they know what is going on is wrong.

That is why Cheney more closely resembles Satanic Qualities (Darth Vader and so on). Out in the open and in your face.

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

So, are you (OTG, crew, team, Jesse, whoever) going to respond to posts made in your threads?
Or????

Personally, I think Dick Cheney would stand toward the head of any war crimes trial our nation ever got to, for clearing it's past and coming to terms so we can move beyond everything with a clear focus forward.

In practical terms, under Bush, I think Bush had the heart and naive sense of cowboy bravado to lead while Cheney had the utter cold ruthlessness required to make Bush's leadership ideas translate into action around the world. That's my personal take. Some Presidents didn't even fully trust their VP's (FDR and Truman, for instance) while some, like Bush, gave their VP's near equal power or, perhaps, a bit more than equal for some things.

I also think the V.P.'s office handled some domestic war time programs the media hasn't seemingly thought to explore yet. Perhaps someday they will, but I'm sure it'll be after Cheney has moved on in a natural way. Time on these things never is a priority, it seems.

a reply to: gladtobehere In 1991, the US bombed Iraq for 40 straight days. It then maintained a no-fly zone and sanctions until the next attack in 2003.

Yet we're supposed to believe that Saddam somehow managed to acquire WMDs...

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
www.cnn.com...

a reply to: MajorAce

Yes, this is correct. Sustaining the attacks against Iraq was a bi-partisan effort.


Iraq, a nation which had done nothing to us, which was actually an "ally".


The point of my post was to illustrate Dick Cheney's lies and contradictions.

Clinton, who is also a scum bag (though less of a scum bag than the Cheney Gang), didnt attack Iraq because of Saddam's "weapons" or "weapons' capabilities". He ordered the attack on Iraq to try and delay/postpone his impeachment.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret:

Governments lie.

The President ordered the attack on the eve of the House Republican majority's impeachment move against him after a tumultuous political day in Washington. Republicans questioned Mr. Clinton's motives in the attack as seeming to be rooted more in his political survival in office than in world security.

And here is the MASTER immediately after the fact, as always, the stalwart of morality and goodness, slamming Clinton (just as he did to the Bush Gang) over these acts of war:

a reply to: the owlbear

Forgiveness is a Virtue of the Ultimate Compassion, but without Dark there is no light...where is the line drawn between the Light and the Dark?

Forgiveness should only be applied to those who repent. That's why god won't forgive satan...?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

That's primarily because "all the little documentaries" are likely to have been based on flawed information from a deflected point of view.

This far out, going on 13 years, we have the benefit of hindsight and research on which to gauge the credibility and source of many of the core "theories" of the Truth movement.

Yeah, maybe 13 years provides enough distance between us and it that it might be okay to begin deconstructing the whole thing in a new way.

I have to be honest with you, after everything that we have been through in the last 13 years, after everything I've been through, the idea of returning to that mess to study it all nauseates me. You too, right, I can't imagine how it couldn't.

Your posts here were both really good, so good that I felt that old urge , that old rage at the frustration and the futility, begin to rise in me again.

It would be a massive job, requiring multiple threads, all heavily moderated to maintain focus.