Comments on: Oh No, The Truth

By: daniel rotter

daniel rotter — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:35:10 +0000

Could you Cheney defenders out there please tell me how the latter’s comments about Obama’s policies making America “less safe” can be vindicated in any way outside the context of another terrorist attack in the U.S? Being out of power, it’s not like Cheney has any ability to reverse these policies.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:39:50 +0000

Those who purport that Cheney and his ilk want America to be attacked are the same folks who could rightfully be accused of wanting the economy to collapse under Bush to make their point.

That would be a fair point if anyone on the left ever did that.

By: jrfunkenstein

jrfunkenstein — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:49:09 +0000

‘Gosh, I’m glad I’m not a Democrat. I’d get dizzy trying to follow the spin and trying to remember the current version of reality.’

No shit; imagine having to defend an administration that used a major terrorist attack on their watch to launch an illegal invasion, destruction and occupation of a nation whose dictator the US implanted and supported for decades, all while pushing a stream of lies about his intention to attack the US with WMD he didn’t have, and then employing Gestapo tactics on thousands of innocent prisoners that are held without trial, without evidence and without legal representation, while being consistently tortured for the crime of being Muslim.

Thank God you righteous Republicans don’t have to deal with any of that abhorrent shit.

By: jrfunkenstein

jrfunkenstein — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:43:58 +0000

‘Hell, if they’ll lie while under oath before Congress, committing a federal offense, it’s nothing for them to lie about Dick Cheney’

Turnaround is fair play; since Cheney lied his fat ass off regarding the necessity to invade and destroy Iraq for fictitious reasons, why shouldn’t he expect to have those lies come back to haunt him?

By: jrfunkenstein

jrfunkenstein — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:40:11 +0000

‘He, (Cheney) and he alone will be blamed. He’s much smarter than you, or Ed Schultz too.’

Smart enough to shoot a guy in the face while drunk off his ass and lie about it.

That’s the kind of smart we could all do without.

By: Zython

Zython — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:44:26 +0000

I realize that Pelosi is trying to shove it down the memory hole, and you’re more than willing to go along with it, but recently she was dealing with reports that she’d been briefed about the CIA’s waterboarding — and had gone along with it at the time. While she was desperately spinning and ducking, she stated that the CIA lied to her, and routinely lies to members of Congress with apparent impunity. Didn't happen. This was backed by Sen. Bob Graham, who, due to having OCD, keeps notes on everything that he does.

By: The Minister of Sexytime

The Minister of Sexytime — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:34:06 +0000

Those who purport that Cheney and his ilk want America to be attacked are the same folks who could rightfully be accused of wanting the economy to collapse under Bush to make their point. Fear-mongering works on both sides of the aisle, and on the entire issues spectrum, not just foreign.

By: Jay Tea

Jay Tea — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:56:56 +0000

Repack, where the dickens are you getting this “Jay Tea is frothing mad” bit? On this thread, I’m feeling rather mellow — more mellow than usual.

So we have a dilemma here: we have the Democratic Speaker, who says the CIA can’t be trusted. Do we accept her word? If we do that, then we’re taking the side of Dick Cheney, who was the evil genius mastermind who ran the White House for the past four years?

Gosh, I’m glad I’m not a Democrat. I’d get dizzy trying to follow the spin and trying to remember the current version of reality.

By: SFC B

SFC B — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 05:14:56 +0000

So, the standard for Mr. Willis to consider something to be “The Truth”, is that people he agrees with give opinions which he agrees with.

Glad that’s settled.

By: Amused Observer

Amused Observer — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:00:25 +0000

Sure I’ve heard of Iraq, what’s your point?

By: Repack Rider

Repack Rider — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:58:04 +0000

it’s nothing for them to lie about Dick Cheney — who doesn’t have the power to have them tossed in jail.

Nancy Pelosi didn’t say that, you did. Do you have any, um, what do they call that stuff,,,? Oh yeah, EVIDENCE. Any EVIDENCE that these unnamed spooks are lying about Cheney? No? Well, then, there you have it. Now you know why I don’t take you seriously.

And this is just in, dateline Philadelphia 1787: Cheney NEVER DID have the “power to have them tossed in jail.” His “powers” as VP, according to the Constitution, were limited to casting tie-breaking votes in the Senate.

Now, about that spittle you are spraying… It isn’t toxic, is it?

By: Rudy

Rudy — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:54:11 +0000

“And the case against Cheney consists of ?”

Um . . . ever heard of Iraq?

By: Jay Tea

Jay Tea — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:18:26 +0000

Take it up with Pelosi, Repack. She’s the one who says the CIA lies to Congress all the time.

By: Repack Rider

Repack Rider — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:48:25 +0000

JT,

Turn your head. You’re spraying spittle.

They say our manufacturing base is down, but not the manufacture of rage out of…

Say, what ARE the raw materials? Hot air and…?

Wait, I know. Stupidity.

By: Jay Tea

Jay Tea — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:09:01 +0000

I can’t believe that anyone’s believing Panetta here. He’s with the CIA, and everyone knows that the CIA lies all the time. Just ask Nancy Pelosi. Hell, if they’ll lie while under oath before Congress, committing a federal offense, it’s nothing for them to lie about Dick Cheney — who doesn’t have the power to have them tossed in jail.

By: Amused Observer

Amused Observer — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:50:19 +0000

So Cheney wants another attack on American soil to prove his point that Obama isn’t quite up to the task of handling dangerous foriegn policy decisions. And Panetta says Cheney wants an attack but then back peddles. And the case against Cheney consists of ?

Oliver gets into the act once again putting out inflammatory rhetoric with no link that actually backs up his case.

By: Repack Rider

Repack Rider — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:31:55 +0000

Cheney can criticize ghis successors ad nauseum on all networks 24/7k, and his daughter takes over when he runs out of breath. He calls Obama a danger to the country, an insult if there ever wAS one.

But if anyone dares criticize Cheney…OH NOES!

This guy didn’t even flinch when he made a mistake that killed tens of thousands of people. But otherwise, he’s just a sensitive guy whose heart is broken by mild criticism.

By: merl

merl — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:46:43 +0000

cheney and all of tbe bedwetters like dennis are praying for another attack. cheney would probably help organize one.

By: joaquin

joaquin — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:55:50 +0000

Leon ‘Morocco Mole’ Panetta made a stupid comment that was unworthy of a CIA Director. You would think that someone in that position would have many other important things to do. BUT NO! Little Leon had to take a cheap shot, except in this case he shot way over his pay-grade.
Panetta quickly got smacked by Cheney so Panetta trotted out a spokesman to ‘take it all back’
Hillary at State and Panetta at CIA. No wonder the world is laughing at this administration.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:33:24 +0000

What’s funny, Cousin Oliver, is that you believe Ed tells the truth that Dick Cheney wants to see Americans murdered and that the public record makes it pretty clear, but you don’t tell us what case Schultz made, or what that public record is that would prove he wants Americans dead. Schultz just sits there knowing he looks silly and declares, ‘Hey, you want my opinion, and I’m giving it to you.” Oh, and he has callers in to his show who agreed with him. Neither Cesca not the other link you provided gave even a hint of why they thought Ed Schultz had any kind of a case. All Schultz offers up is that Cheney wants the power. I guess he wanted the power so bad that he declared from the beginning of his first tern as VP that he would never seek the Presidency. What power does he want now, the power of another VP job if ‘the neo-cons get back in power’ if there’s another 9/11? Good grief.

Schultz looked silly and it showed in his face. No one is backing him on this, and Panetta completely nullified Schultz’ intended effect, whatever his bizarre intentions were.

But hey, ‘three cheers to Ed for having a pair’.

At least up until the point they just shriveled up, that is.