Comments on: Dick Cheney & The Republican Culture Of Corruption

By: kyle

kyle — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:13:46 +0000

these mother fuckers for hundreds of years keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. they have raped america financially took innocent kids putting them in a war that is strictly for money in THEIR pocket while we see everyday someone’s son, brother, uncle dad dying to put a little extra cash in these right winged republicans hands and they fuck us everytime, that’s why i learned not to take these ‘peoples’ words with face value because every politician always has a hidden agenda. thank you cheyney and bush for fucking every goddamn person in the united states i hope you get fucking killed or put your fucking kids in the war then i will feel more comfortable fighting this shit knowing you fucking republicans have something to lose to like your white rich and snobby fucking kids i hope your kids die to because you deserve every little bad disasterous thing coming to you guys

By: buma

buma — Thu, 25 May 2006 17:05:03 +0000

Viral Cyrus Says:
May 25th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Frank s right. I m sure Dick Chaney has his share of skeletons, but using the fact that he was called as a witness as an example of corruption is just plain silly.
Does that make all witnesses called in a murder investigation acessories to murder?>>

Given the fact that this case is about whether those in the WH were or were not aware of the covert status of the outed CIA operative, Cheney may well be guilty. But for now it’s fine for us all to join in with bleeding hearts like cyrus and frankfarris and assume the man is innocent. After all, he has not been charged. Since the indicted Libby was Cheney’s Number One, it is logical to assume Big Time was aware of what was going on.

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Thu, 25 May 2006 15:05:56 +0000

As usual, frame has it backwards. Cheney and Libby WANTED their story out. It’s the media (Russert, Mitchell, Pincus, Kristof, Woodward) who are fighting the supoenas and don’t want the truth out.

By: frameone

frameone — Thu, 25 May 2006 15:05:50 +0000

“As usual, frame has it backwards.”

Oh Save, my mushbrained friend, if Cheney and Libby “wanted their story out their” why, first of all, were all their leaks to the press done anonymously? Second, why didn’t Libbyand Cheney just come right out and say that they were behind the leaks the minute the investigation got under way? Third, why did Libby apparently tell Scott McClellan, a member of his own team, that he had nothing to do with the leaks? Fourth, why has Cheney still refused to comment on the story?

Both Libby and Cheney definitely wanted to get a story out, they just didn’t want anyone to know that it was THEIR story. I wonder why that was?

Do you actually think that Cheney wants to be put under oath about this or anything? You do remember, I’m sure, that both Cheney and Bush refused to be sworn in when they gave their testimony to the 9-11 commission?

Oh and Cyrus don’t worry that will be Rule #1 for conservatives the second Cheney begins fighting any subpoena. No freakin way he’s going to allow himself to be put under oath.

By: Cyrus the Virus

Cyrus the Virus — Thu, 25 May 2006 15:05:31 +0000

frame,

Please follow the rules set forth by Oliver and the other lefties here. Clinton isn’t president anymore. You’re not allowed to bring him up.

By: BD

BD — Thu, 25 May 2006 14:05:38 +0000

While this isn’t condemning, the fact that he’s subpoenaed seems to speak to his involvement in Libby’s activities–a corroboration of the notes he jotted on the Joe Wilson column–and is probably more connected to the mess than anybody in the WH wanted to admit.

By: frameone

frameone — Thu, 25 May 2006 14:05:16 +0000

“… and is probably more connected to the mess than anybody in the WH wanted to admit.”

Which is why Cheney will fight any subpoena on grounds of executive priviledge or national security or whatever and why every conservative idiot who was outraged over Clinton’s attempts to keep himself and his aides from having to testify under oath in court will suddenly reverse their opinion and start screaming “witch hunt” and “out of control prosectutor” in slavish droves.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 25 May 2006 14:05:11 +0000

The story says “Vice President Dick Cheney could be called to testify”
“Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald suggested Cheney would be a logical government witness because he could authenticate notes he jotted on a July 6, 2003, New York Times opinion piece by a former U.S. ambassador critical of the Iraq war.”

“Fitzgerald said Cheney s ’state of mind’ is ‘directly relevant’ to whether I. Lewis Scooter Libby, the vice president s former top aide, lied to FBI agents”.

In other words, it’s a non – story. This is what happens when you make a Google “News alert” for Cheney.

By: Jamey

Jamey — Thu, 25 May 2006 13:05:41 +0000

Hey, you said it, Frankie, not I.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 25 May 2006 13:05:34 +0000

Yes, and we all know that all the witnesses in a case are as guilty as the suspects — if they’re Republican!

By: Cyrus the Virus

Cyrus the Virus — Thu, 25 May 2006 13:05:34 +0000

Frank’s right. I’m sure Dick Chaney has his share of skeletons, but using the fact that he was called as a witness as an example of corruption is just plain silly.

Does that make all witnesses called in a murder investigation acessories to murder?