speedlover1994

Well, I just watched an interview clip of him, and my...I HATE him.

He refused to answer pretty much every question, and said the interviewer was out of line asking the questions (mostly about Iraq). Now, I understand that not answering questions is part of politics, but he did it in such an obnoxious way.

Then, as a knock out punch, the interviewer asked about Dick's fifth grandchild, who will be delivered by his daughter. That doesn't seem so bad right? But in case you didn't know, Dick Cheney is homophobic (NEWS FLASH) and another crucial piece of evidence is that his daughter is lesbian.

Dick's response? Well, it was something along the lines of this "....... ... I'm very proud of my daughter, and I think you're completely out of line "

So he's allowed to be homophobic as long as it doesn't affect anyone he knows? WOW, his name says it all

__________________
"you have enemies, good. That means you stood up for something, sometime in your life"

highsea

Wow, you figured out he was a homophobe from that, huh?

Smart guy....

Apparently you don't know understand how the media has had a field day with Cheney's daughter.

On second thought, no- you're probably just not too bright.

If anyone is interested in the interview, it can be found here (starts about halfway down):

CNN.com - Transcripts

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

wabpilot

I do not like the current President and I'm not fond of the Vice President either. That being said, I think their children and grandchildren are off limits for political attack.

Ray

I have seen the US election and political scene very closely but from a very far distance from the US.

I concede that my knowledge is based on interaction, media and TV, international as also of the US.

What surprises me is that in the US one seems to have no hold barred in doing down a person including smashing him/ her with private issues that have no relevance to the issue at hand.

Take the US elections, interviews and even now this Cheney interview.

Cheney, Bush, Obama, Clinton, Kerry, you name them and they are as good as being stonewashed and hung without any relevance to the issue.

What has Cheney's lesbian daughter got to do with Iraq? Yes, what?

Cheney may be the biggest ass, but his daughter's sexuality is of no importance to Iraq nor has she shown any interest in some Iraqi woman that there could even be a the remotest connection. And even if there were, it surely had no effect in the policy making of the US.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

zenimal

"BLITZER: We heard the president mention Osama bin Laden last night in his State of the Union Address. Why can't you find this guy?

CHENEY: Well, obviously, he's well hidden. We've been looking for him for some time. I think the fact is he's gone totally to ground. He doesn't communicate, except perhaps by courier. He's not up on the air. He's not putting out videos the way he did oftentimes in the past."

Or maybe Mr. Cheney, it's because he isn't in Iraq and US has 7 times more troops and military in Iraq than Afghanistan?

"BLITZER: The criticism is that you took your eye off the ball by going into Iraq and, in effect, reducing the focus of attention on Al Qaida and bin Laden.

CHENEY: It's just not true. I've heard that charge. It's simply not true, Wolf. "

Of course it's true. US is focused on Iraq and nobody gives a crap about Afghanistan or Bin Laden in administration anymore.

"The fact of the matter is, we can do more than one thing at a time and we have. And we've been very successful with going after Al Qaida. They're still out there, they're still a formidable force, but they're not nearly as formidable as they once were, in terms of numbers and so forth. We have..."

The fact of the matter is Iraq wasn't a training ground for terrorists until US overthrew Saddam and literally opened the borders of the country to welcome all terrorists in.

"BLITZER: There are some experts who think they're an even greater threat.

CHENEY: We have successfully defended the country for five years against any further attacks. They've tried. We know repeatedly -- the president talked about it last night in his speech."

Uhh, 93 and 01 WTC attacks were 8 years apart, so 5 years isn't really an accomplishment.

"BLITZER: Well, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.

CHENEY: Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would, at this point, be engaged in a nuclear arms race with Ahmadinejad, his blood enemy next door in Iran."

So, didn't you support Saddam and his "chemical WMD" in 80s to fight Iran. What's the difference now?

"CHENEY: He had corrupted the entire effort to try to keep him contained. He was bribing senior officials of other governments. The Oil For Food Program had been totally undermined. And he had, in fact, produced and used weapons of mass destruction previously, and he retained the capability to produce that kind of stuff in the future."

Yeah he used the chemical weapons on Kurds and Iranians and US didn't care.

"CHENEY: You can go back and argue the whole thing all over again, Wolf. But what we did in Iraq in taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do. The world is much safer today because of it."

Yeah cause Iraqis now can't go on the street buy food or they'll get hit by a suicide attack. They're sooo safe.

Sorry, I just had to reply to those. Dick Cheney is such a retard. He knows Iraqi war is a failure, just admit it for God's sake. Bush has admitted it, there's no reason to keep saying, oh it's all fine, we're getting new strategies, blah blah.

This interview was almost as good as when Clinton owned that guy on Fox News.
YouTube - Clinton vs. Fox News

Uhh, I hate radical people, whether it be Islamists or Republicans.

highsea

How many al-Qaeda attacks did the Clinton administration prevent?
The US provided intel, not weapons to Iraq.

What's the difference? 9/11.
I'm not sure we even knew about it at the time, but even if we had known there wasn't a hell of a lot we could have done about it. Iraq was a Soviet satellite state, and we sure weren't going to go to war with the USSR over Iran or Iraq.

And Iran hadn't exactly endeared themselves to Reagan.
No kidding. You probably even thought that was clever.

yawn...zzzzzzzzzzz

Ray

[quote]All, I presume since there was none like 9/11.

Or am I wrong?

Hardly any different actually.

In fact, that helped him home in and do the evil.

I am not an Iranian so I would not know for sure, but prima facie, it was worse since more died than 9/11 and they were also gassed I believe. Imagine choking and dying. Slow death. Horrid!
.
Oh sure, you knew.

Stop playing so innocent.

How do you presume that the USSR would go to war over Iraq? They never even went to war over Isreali when all their satellites got a thorough hiding!

Bigfella

"The US provided intel, not weapons to Iraq."

No. Much more complex than that. First, ther was money. Billions of dollars of it. Saddam blew all his oil money on the war, all those tanks, guns, planes & WMD factories don't come cheap. US companies also supplied weapons systems & chemicals for WMD production.

"I'm not sure we even knew about it at the time, but even if we had known there wasn't a hell of a lot we could have done about it. Iraq was a Soviet satellite state, and we sure weren't going to go to war with the USSR over Iran or Iraq."

You bet your arse you knew about it. When the gassings took place at Halabja in 1988 the US Congress passed a motion condemning it. Bush vetoed the motion. I believe similar interference was run in the UN. America could have pushed for sanctions - something potentially devastating for a nation locked in war with an enemy 3 times its size. Perhaps he figured that if he wasn't even chastised for this, invading Kuwait wouldn't get anyone off side.

Saddam was no more a Russian satellite than he was a US, Saudi or British one. In actual fact, he had US assistance to overthrow the Russian-backed military regime in 1968. US hopes of finding another puppet in the middle East didn't last long. When he invaded Iran it wasn't on anyone's behalf, though Russia, the Saudis & the major Western players all let him know that they were on side. The Russians actually slapped an arms embargo on both sides, but it didn't last.

Saddam was seen as a bulwark against fundamentalist Islam in the same way that fundamentalist Islam was seen as a bulwark against Communism. More brilliant forward thinking.

gunnut

I thought he did a great job.

Wolf Blitzer was out of line by continually pursuing a line of questions that he had already stated that he will not answer. These questions do not concern the office of the vice president. These were personal questions.


I would like to see Wolf pin Hillary with questions like:

"How did you deal with your husband's blow jobs from a fat intern?"

"How did Chelsea deal with her father being unfaithful?"

"Do you know of any other extra marital affairs your husband has had and how did you deal with each one of them?"


Do you think those questions are fair? Do you think those questions have anything to do at all with Hillary's White House ambitions?

I demand Wolf to ask those quesitons and I demand Hillary to answer them. If not, I hate them.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

gunnut

Perhaps you are too dumb to read between the lines. We have rendered Bin Laden ineffective. He's no where to be found. When was the last time he came out to rally his troops? We haven't heard peep one from him for a long time, not even a recorded internet video. We hear a tape from time to time, but most of the communiques are from his #2 man.

No news is good news. Afghanistan is done well so people like you are quite disappointed.

Did you know Iraq wasn't training terrorists? Did you know Iraq wasn't planning to hand off some WMD to some terrorists to hit us? Where is your definitive proof? Saddam was paying Palestinian suicide bombers. We have paper trails to prove that.

Of course a revisionist like you would conveniently forget the Khobar Tower Bombing in 1996, the twin bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the USS Cole bombing in 2000.

Prove his chemical weapons came from us.

So you would support a measure to remove Saddam from power as he has used chemical weapons on the Kurds and the Iranians?

Really? How did you know that? If that's the case, we should expect mass starvations by now. But it seems like most of them are doing just fine. They go to their mosques to pray, to markets to buy food, to voting booths to vote, seems like pretty decent to me. Some places are more violent than others, yes, but through the miracles of Calamity News Network, it seems like the world is coming to an end.

Don't be sorry. We need more proof from you to show us how little you know and how blinded you really are.

I hate radicals too, whether it be islamists or democraps. Both of them are threats to this country.

Parihaka

What the hell are you doing in Kalifornia?

gunnut

One word: weather.

Believe me, I plan to move when I get a chance.

bonehead

Too much pollution too much crime, and too damned hot in the summer. You stay for that?

highsea

Embassy bombings in Africa and USS Cole, both of which drew virtually no response from Clinton.

Point being, Clinton was also focused on Iraq and ignored al-Qaeda. Shortly before he left office, he bombed the crap out of "suspected" Iraqi WMD sites with Tomahawks. He even stated publicly that he had no idea whether or not it had any effect.

In the meantime, al-Qaeda was already in the US, planning 9/11.
It is different Ray. And I kind of doubt we were providing satellite imagery of the Kurds in Northern Iraq, but I suppose it's possible.

Regardless, the persistent myth that the US provided Saddam with Chemical weapons is false. Those weapons came primarily from Germany. And those weren't M-16's and M1A1's the US faced in 1991, they were AK-47's and T-72's.
Not playing innocent, my statement was I'm not sure if we knew at the time. If you say we did, then I will take your word on that.

Throughout the 80's, the US media was focused on Afghanistan. The Iran-Iraq war got basically zero coverage until the Stark incident.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you have a link or a bill#? I would like to read the motion and the veto.

If what you say is true, it was wrong.
Please provide some supporting evidence. US companies provided bio samples for Iraqi research institutions e.g. universities. What weapons and chemicals for WMD production did the US provide Iraq?

gunnut

California? No way. I live in the rich and conservative part of southern California. Very little crime, very mild weather, more pollution than the midwest, but far less than you would think.

The Calamity News Network has trained you all to think California has lots of crimes because you see car chases and gang violence every night on TV. The reality is those are very rare in most parts of the state. As long as you stay away from the liberal part of the town, crime is low.