I am totally surprised that worst vice president in U.S. history turned out to be full of it. Again.
Strikingly, they provide little evidence for Cheney’s claims that the ‘enhanced interrogation’ program run by the CIA provided valuable information. In fact, throughout both documents, many passages — though several are incomplete and circumstantial, actually suggest the opposite of Cheney’s contention: that non-abusive techniques actually helped elicit some of the most important information the documents cite in defending the value of the CIA’s interrogations.
Headline drift at the ODubya.com
‘CIA Documents Provide Little Cover for Cheney Claims’ ≠ ‘CIA Documents Rebut Cheney Assertions’
Why isn’t Cheney in prison? The worthless old bastard was drunk as a skunk when he shot old Harry Whitington in the face. That alone would have landed you or me in jail, not to mention starting a war under false pretenses! We need to find the courage as a country to admit our mistakes – and to execute this old fool!
It’s pretty well confirmed.
Don’t worry, the ugly spawn of Dick, Lizard Cheney, will be on TV for the next 2 weeks spouting her defense of her piece of shit father, and as per usual, the so called Librul media will not challenge her lies at all. They will make sure she gets to be on every single fucking tv channel and they most certainly will treat her with the ‘respect and deference’ she deserves.
Because that’s what good honest media people do. Tim Russert pioneered this tactic…you don’t EVER call a lie a lie, no no no, that’s really bad because then you don’t get invited back for BBQ at the Ranch.
Instead, you sit there like an empty headed tool and you let one side say ‘X’ and the other side say ‘Y’, and you look in the camera and shrug, well it seems people are divided on this issue…fade to black.
Oddly enough, others read the following and came to a slightly different conclusion:
Crap, forgot to close off the tag… the last two paragraphs are mine.
J.
‘CIA Documents Provide Little Cover for Cheney Claims’ ≠ ‘CIA Documents Rebut Cheney Assertions’
Oliver’s under no obligation to parrot the overly cautious headline, he’s characterizing – accurately – the contents of the story.
When Cheney was on all the teevees undermining the president, he made big news by hissing and wheezing portentiously about these documents that would show that torture is worth it. The documents do no such thing. They do not come out and say “Cheney is wrong” but their very existence and content rebut his assertions. In other words, he lied.
What a poisonous toad that man is. This is a real “at long last, have you no shame” moment for him.
though several are incomplete and circumstantial
Translated: We can’t prove it in a court of law only because the definitive proof is redacted.
Worst vice president in U.S. history? How about the worst person in U.S. history?
REAL MEN TORTURE!
Con commenters see Arabs as subhuman so it’s okay to torture them
If you waterboarded Cheney with gravy he’d last for hours.
Oliver -
Apropos of nothing in this thread, but I can’t find a contact email for you on your Contact/About page and wanted to bring this post to you attention. Wondered what your thoughts would be.
This issue: SUPERMAN DOESN’T DIE!!! at MightyGodKing.com.
Gives a nice argument for why putting Superman in mortal peril isn’t much of a story hook but, then, it isn’t supposed to be.
Mr. Tea, either you or Mr. Morrissey is playing a shell game.
He quotes from a 2004 inspector general’s report, not the documents Mr. Cheney declared would prove the effectiveness of torturing detainees. Oliver is quite correct–the reports trumpeted by Mr. Cheney do not demonstrate what he claimed.
Worst vice president in U.S. history? How about the worst person in U.S. history?
I’ll accept anyone’s assessment that VP Cheney is the worst vice president in US history, if you can document your assessment of the second worst vice president in history.
Surely, VP Cheney can only be the worst, if he is worse than all the other vice presidents. Therefore , there can only be one vice president worse than all but Cheney, correct?
Good luck , use a No. 2 Pencil and show your work.
Just off the top of my head (sorry, no work to show), my vote for number 2 would be John C. Calhoun, Spiro Agnew #3, Dan Quayle #4, Aaron Burr #5 (he was a rock around Jefferson’s neck and committed a far worse sin than Agnew, but in other respects he was head and shoulders above any of these turkeys).
Only one in Cheney’s league, really, is Calhoun, but even he had the saving grace of a modicum of honesty and integrity. I take your point that few VP’s rise far enough above the level of non-entity (while in office) to even be in the running, but that is part of what makes Cheney so insidious.
I’d be willing to limit the statement to “worst since the civil war”.
This brings up another question, though Who is the worst former-vice-president ever? I suppose it would be hard to beat Nixon, but Cheney, with his odious recent intrusions into the public discourse, appears to be trying to make a run for the title.
I’d be willing to limit the statement to “worst since the civil war”.
The shooting an old man in the face may make Cheney a no-brainer for Worst Ever. aAthough in Cheney’s defense, he had been drinking, and the old man in question is a douche-bag Republican.
This brings up another question, though Who is the worst former-vice-president ever? I suppose it would be hard to beat Nixon, but Cheney, with his odious recent intrusions into the public discourse, appears to be trying to make a run for the title.
Nixon. How about Worst Former President Ever. George Bush, Jr. is a strong candidate. Although in his defense, he’s staying drunk and out of the picture, so he can’t really fuck anything up. As an Elder Statesman, though, he’s about as useless as he was as [Technical] President.
George W. Bush is the worst VP in our nation’s history. Cheney the worst President.
II’ll accept anyone’s assessment that VP Cheney is the worst vice president in US history, if you can document your assessment of the second worst vice president in history.
Surely, VP Cheney can only be the worst, if he is worse than all the other vice presidents. Therefore , there can only be one vice president worse than all but Cheney, correct?
Good luck , use a No. 2 Pencil and show your work.
Spiro Agnew.
I’ll accept anyone’s assessment that Tiger Woods is the best golfer in America, if you can document your assessment of the second best golfer in America.
Or is that completely nonsensical?
Therefore, there can only be one vice president worse than all but Cheney, correct?
I think second place is a five-way tie, including Agnew, Nixon, Quayle, Tyler, and one of your choice.
Remember the appointed VP Nelson Rockefeller, who died most incoveniently while “in the saddle” at his mistress’s appartment.
Wha? Where did that Imperial battlecruiser come from? Oooh…… Cheney’s back.
calling all toasters: Unless we all agree on guidelines for assessment, your request can never be fulfilled. Since agreement seems entirely unlikely, I guess making the request was nonsensical, no?
But you knew that already, didn’t you.
Oh come on, Calhoun’s gotta be in there somewhere!
But you’re right- Nixon was pretty odious as VP
Part of the issue is that there are different kinds of “bad”, from laughably incompetent (Quayle, Johnson), to corrupt (Agnew), to effective but wrong-headed (Calhoun, Nixon). But there has to be a special circle of hell for “bent on establishing tyranny under the guise of fighting it” (Cheney).
calling all toasters: It is nonsensical. But I never called Tiger Woods the greatest golfer in the United States.
It was the hyperbolic lefties in this weblog who decided that VP Cheney was the worst Vice President in United States history, without pointing to one historical , or even journalistic assessment of Vice Presidents for support.
I called bullshit, and no one has properly answered the challenge, because BS is BS , even when you get a Ph D and call it “rhetoric”, or “hyperbole” or “bloviation”.
‘I think second place is a five-way tie, including Agnew, Nixon, Quayle, Tyler, and one of your choice.’
At least I give Tyler credit for establishing the precedent that the Vice-President becomes President in the full sense when succeeding a vacancy in the presidency.
Speaking of VP’s, where has Biden been lately? What basement have they locked him in since his bizarre appearance at the beer tasting summit?
What a great asset for Team Obama he is.
I called bullshit, and no one has properly answered the challenge, because BS is BS , even when you get a Ph D and call it “rhetoric”, or “hyperbole” or “bloviation”.
That’s been pretty well confirmed.
Speaking of VP’s, where has Biden been lately?
He’s off doing whatever it is vice-presidents do when a President is competent enough to work without a minder.
Which is what, Quibbie? Being muzzled, because his boss can’t afford any more of his gaffes right now?
What? You didn’t get it the first time?
I hate repeating myself.
I called bullshit, and no one has properly answered the challenge,
Uh, I already answered it. What’s the matter? Going senile?
Zython, please, please, please stop trying to be clever! You are so bad at it. Throwing up an answer like “Agnew” was not what I asked for. I asked you to support it. You, and nearly everyone else, did not.
I could have commented long ago that “VP Cheney wasn’t the worst VP in US history; VP Gore was, or VP H Wallace was.” If I had, i would expect that one of you ( certainly not you, Zython ) would have asked for evidence to support it.
As for going senile, I could mail my brain to Chicago, and whilst waiting for its return, be smarter than you.
As for going senile, I could mail my brain to Chicago, and whilst waiting for its return, be smarter than you.
ZOMG! That is sooooooo clever!
Zython, please, please, please stop trying to be clever! You are so bad at it.
I’m a hell of a lot better at it than you.
Throwing up an answer like “Agnew” was not what I asked for. I asked you to support it. You, and nearly everyone else, did not.
Your first post on the subject asked for no such thing. This is what we like to call “moving the goal posts”.
Dick Cheney has been the best VP in my memory. A damn shame he wasn’t president.
Amused o: Dick Cheney has been the best VP in my memory. A damn shame he wasn’t president.
Summing up in once sentence exactly why anything posted by Amused 0 should just be ignored out of hand.
“REAL MEN TORTURE!”
But secretively eat quiche!!
Summing up in once sentence exactly why anything posted by Amused 0 should just be ignored out of hand.
I’m pretty sure AO nothing more than a computer script designed to troll. In other words, AO is nothing more than AI.
Zython: from my first post:
if you can document your assessment of the second worst vice president in history
Spiro Agnew.
This has gone on long enough: A few minutes on Bing reading surveys discloses that Aaron Burr is judged as the worst Vice President in US history. While this is a valid assessment, I do not believe it relates to his performance as vice president. Yes, he shot Hamilton in a duel, and fomented an insurrection, but for worst vice president, I would look amongst the ineffectual veeps of the virtually unknown Presidents.
Call VP Cheney what you will, he was far from ineffectual. The very mention of his name has you frothing at the mouth, which is similar to the reaction from former VP Gore, even though I never got that reaction while he was in office.
“similar to the reaction I get from former VP Gore”
he was far from ineffectual
Which is why Dick Cheney is the worst vice president we ever had. A maniacal idiot who had his hands on the levers of power.
Frank DiSalle: Call VP Cheney what you will, he was far from ineffectual.
Torquemada was far from ineffectual, too.
Is that really your defnse of Cheney? That he was really good at breaking the law?
Torquemada was far from ineffectual, too.
You got me !
Meh
How’s this?
Roosevelt was far from ineffectual, too.
This “maniacal idiot who had his hands on the levers of power,”
is called both useless and the power behind the throne, Machiavellian and stupid, sinister and boisterous.
You don’t know what to convict him of, so you just rage against him — what a handy foil!
We hate the President ! ( and you can’t stop us! Nah nah nuh nah nah)
We hate the Vice President ! ( and you can’t stop us! Nah nah nuh nah nah)
Fast forward to Aug ‘09 — You’re dissing my favorite politician ! Wa – wa – wa
No fair , you nasty right wing brutes!
Just stop it, already, OK?
They’re out of office , OK ? Your guy won… He’ll be gone in 2012 ( oops! Did I say that? ), but enjoy it for four years.
Frank DiSalle: You don’t know what to convict him of, so you just rage against him
Well, unlike Cheney himself and apparently you, I’d like to hold an investigation before actually convicting someone. You know, the process of justice and all that liberal stuff.
That said, I suspect any real investigation would be to determine whether he was guilty of
- lying to Congress (run ups to the war, etc.)
- treason (for his role in outing an undercover CIA agent)
- his role in illegal wiretaps
- etc.
Fast forward to Aug ‘09 — You’re dissing my favorite politician ! Wa – wa – wa
No fair , you nasty right wing brutes!
As noted before, several folks from the left here have criticized Obama and other Democrat politicians when they have done something objectionable, or failed to do something wanted. So dissing a favorite politician isn’t something we haven’t done ourselves.
Naturally you can’t see objections to your criticisms as anything other than “wa wa wa” because that’s the level of childish discourse that you engage in. But the actual objection is to your baseless criticisms. For example, you want to talk about healthcare reform and what it should consist of, then drop all the crap about “death panels”, America having the finest healthcare in the world, etc. which have been demonstrated time and again to be utter falsehoods and put up some real, actual, fact- and reality-based informed opinions.
Sean : Thankfully for all Americans, you don’t determine who gets investigated. It probably has never occurred to you, that WHEN the Republicans occupy the White House again, they might want to investigate the prior incumbents. What do you care?
BTW, don’t give me that bilgewater about “innocent until proven guilty”. You wouldn’t want an investigation, if you thought the outcome was going to be innocent Republicans and Democrats with egg on their face.
And “the dissing of your favorite politician” I was referring to was TMK, not BHO.
I, for one, have no desire to debate about ObamaCare. I don’t believe it is a good solution. I believe that continuing to expand coverage of Medicaid and Medicare over the next 10 years is the cheapest, most efficient, and least intrusive way to provide health care to as many Americans as possible.
Frank DiSalle: Sean : Thankfully for all Americans, you don’t determine who gets investigated.
There you go off again, in standard wingnut fashion, challenging someone on something they never said. I never said I should determine who should be investigated.
It probably has never occurred to you, that WHEN the Republicans occupy the White House again, they might want to investigate the prior incumbents.
Great, when the Repubs inevitably regain the White House I look forward to their investigations of former incumbents such as Bush et al.
Here’s a difference you just don’t seem to get, Frank. If Obama or any Dem breaks the laws while in office (Note: breaks the law. Not gets a blowjob.), yes, I’d like to see them held accountable for that. My desire for justice doesn’t look at which party the person belongs to.
You’re main argument for not investigating the Repubs isn’t “they didn’t do anything wrong”, but “if you investigate we’ll retaliate”. That’s almost as reprehensible a view as your insistence that brutal tyranny is the right way to go.
BTW, don’t give me that bilgewater about “innocent until proven guilty”. You wouldn’t want an investigation, if you thought the outcome was going to be innocent Republicans and Democrats with egg on their face.</i
Completely not true and you can’t point to anything I’ve said that shows otherwise. Again, you’re making shit up out of whole cloth to object to because you can’t make a reasoned argument against what actually is.
I don’t want a politician of any party to get away with breaking the law. I don’t for a second believe the best course is to ignore crimes of a prior administration because it is “best for the country”. On the contrary, I believe it simply convinces the next person that they are above the law and perpetuates the committing of crimes.
And “the dissing of your favorite politician” I was referring to was TMK, not BHO.
And I was referring to politicians on “our side” in general. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Baucus were the ones that came most immediately to mind. But I wouldn’t exclude Kennedy or any other from the list if they screwed up on something. But, again, I don’t suppose I can convince you that I know my mind better than you do.
I, for one, have no desire to debate about [health care reform].
Not at all surprised.
Dang tags.
In case not clear, the “Completely not true …” and “I don’t want a politician of any party ..” paragraphs in the prior post are mine. (Not that I really think anyone could mistake those for Frank’s views.)
All I have to say is:
I suspect any real investigation would be to determine whether he was guilty of
- lying to Congress (run ups to the war, etc.)
- treason (for his role in outing an undercover CIA agent)
- his role in illegal wiretaps
- etc.
former does not equal prior
My main argument , that they didn’t anything criminally wrong, should go without saying ( just as you have minimalized getting a blowjob from an intern in the Oval Office from lying under oath about it).
“If Obama or any Dem breaks the laws” means ‘that could never be, so investigating them is automatically a witch hunt .
As for making shit up, I never said that a brutal tyranny was the way to go. I can play your game : In no way, shape or form, nowhere, at any time, in any place , did I say, “a brutal tyranny was the way to go”. Now, did I?
Who do you think you are, Perry Mason?
Gimme a break!
You never said put Dick Cheney on trial, and I never said brutal tyranny is the way to go .
If you lefties are so blamed sure you’re right, why don’t you dispense with the “gotchas” and the word games, and come right out and say what you mean and mean what you say?
My theory?
In the cold light of day, your beliefs are an amalgam of juvenile hooey, and hoary nostrums, that no one would ever accept if you didn’t keep changing their names and pretending that they were something else .
Frank DiSalle: “If Obama or any Dem breaks the laws” means ‘that could never be, so investigating them is automatically a witch hunt …
If you lefties are so blamed sure you’re right, why don’t you dispense with the “gotchas” and the word games, and come right out and say what you mean and mean what you say?
Frank, I very clearly did say what I meant. “If Obama or any Dem breaks the laws” means exactly what I actually said.
That you have to claim that a short declarative sentence doesn’t actually say what is clearly does, and that I didn’t come right out and say what I actually did, merely shows how far you will go to twist even the simplest reality to fit your victim fantasies.
I honestly hope you recover from the clostridium difficile soon, Frank. Because the shit is clearly leaking out both ends.
Fuck you, Martin.
How’s that for a simple declarative sentence ?
You’re another Keyboard Commando , real brave miles away. If you were at arm’s length, I’d kick your ass so bad , your children would apologize .
Ladies and gents, class and cuteness from your far left liberal loon brigade on full display.
clostridium difficile ….So impressive, Sean.
And, for the record, S M you moron: Those two sentences were not connected , or even in the same context. You’re no better than the clever by half Zython, cherry picking and word twisting, thinking he has “bested” someone. You are a poorly educated, shallow thinking sophist.
Frank DiSalle: As for making shit up, I never said that a brutal tyranny was the way to go. I can play your game : In no way, shape or form, nowhere, at any time, in any place , did I say, “a brutal tyranny was the way to go”. Now, did I?
OK. Ya got me. You didn’t use those exact words. Now let me see what you did actually say (cue wavy flashback fade)…
- Military action is the only course that must be considered.
- We must nurse our anger and impatience. We must not consider war a bad thing.
- We must assert ourselves to show how great we are.
- Nothing but giving into our baser instincts ever works.
- Britain should have been MORE aggressive in their oppression.
You’re right, Frank. You never said the words “a brutal tyranny is the way to go.” You only said the US should not consider anything other than military action, that we should nurse our baser instincts and that Britain should have been more aggressive in preserving their empire. But you’re not advocating the US follow the course Britain failed to take. How could anyone think you meant that?
Frank DiSalle: You know why I comment on this blog? Because you guys need an education. Hardly any of you can debate, or persuade.
—
Frank DiSalle: “If Obama or any Dem breaks the laws” means ‘that could never be, so investigating them is automatically a witch hunt …
If you lefties are so blamed sure you’re right, why don’t you dispense with the “gotchas” and the word games, and come right out and say what you mean and mean what you say?
SDM: Frank, I very clearly did say what I meant. “If Obama or any Dem breaks the laws” means exactly what I actually said. “If Obama or any Dem breaks the laws while in office, yes, I’d like to see them held accountable for that.”
And presented with a clear example of Frank twisting a declarative sentence into to do exactly what he complains about others doing his considered, superior conservative response is…
Fuck you, Martin.
How’s that for a simple declarative sentence ?
If you were at arm’s length, I’d kick your ass so bad , your children would apologize .
wingnut debating and persuading, ladies and gents. Let us all learn from educator Frank.
Frank DiSalle: And, for the record: Those two sentences were not connected , or even in the same context.
Did you not decry lefty “word games” and “gotchas” and ask that “come right out and say what you mean and mean what you say?” Had you not previously taken my straightforward sentence where I said exactly what I meant (Obama should be held accountable if he breaks the law) and claim it said something other than what it clearly did?
Then, please, educate me, Frank. Or is “Fuck you. I’d beat you up” the best you’ve got.
Frank DiSalle: You’re another Keyboard Commando , real brave miles away. If you were at arm’s length, I’d kick your ass so bad , your children would apologize .
Says the Keyboard Command who talks real brave while safely miles away.
I call your bluff, Frank. I’ve been careful not to give much personal info here. I don’t believe, from the comments I posted, anyone can with certainty claim to know my age, race, sex, orientation, occupation, location, etc. But for you I’ll make an exception. seanmartin.willis@gmail.com. Send me an email I can reply to privately and I’ll tell you where I am. Then you just need to tell me when you’ll show up. I won’t even fight back.
Assault charge or admission you’re a hypocrite, Frank. Your choice.
I’ll take no answer as an admission of hypocrite, Frank.
Frank DiSalle (via email):
Frank -
And you accused me of being a “Keyboard Commando”, brave only when not actually confronted. Easy for you, sitting there safely behind your keyboard to claim you’ll kick my ass. But when challenged to actually do it, you back down (as expected) hiding behind all sorts of excuses (as also expected).
- Oh noes, you won’t fight back.
- Oh noes, there might actually be consequences.
- Oh noes, it would cost too much.
Taking your excuses in turn,
1) You’re the one who has argued that a nation should be aggressive and dominate by force where I’ve argued that being resolute and determined without being brutal works better. You would now insist I adopt your view when we meet? Why so unwilling to let me handle the confrontation on my terms? You want to kick my ass to show how much more right you are than I, then go for it.
And when I’m standing there bloodied and you’re standing there unscathed because I didn’t fight back (me having dared a thing and you not having suffered much), tell me again how you demonstrated superior reasoning skills.
2) The US is a nation of Laws, Frank. You want to assault someone then you risk being held accountable for that. Easy to talk big when there’s no risk, there behind your keyboard, right? How brave of you. You’re a hypocrite and coward, Frank.
3) The MySpace page your byline links to says you’re in New Rochelle, NY. Been there several times over the years but no longer live within what you would likely consider a reasonable distance (and I suspect you’d claim anything over 100 yards too far away if it provide you with an excuse to back down).
So,
I’m still here. I’ll face you anytime you want to show up. Not that I expect you ever will since
- You won’t back up your words with deeds,
- you won’t put your money where your mouth is, and
- most notable of all, you won’t fight me if I won’t fight back. Proving exactly my point. Thanks, Frank!
Now you made it public, you worthless scumbag! What a juvenile thing to do. I am too fair a man to believe that all liberals are pussies like you, but you have disgraced yourself and your colleagues today.
BTW, you and I are done …
“What a juvenile thing to do.”
What’s juvenile is making tough-guy physical threats over the internet, you fucking idiot.
Turn off Matlock and go to bed, loser.
FRank DiSalle: Now you made it public, you worthless scumbag!
Somebody call the WAHmbulance.
It was already public, Frank. The only reason I provided a private means of communication was (as I made clear when I gave you my email address) so as not to broadcast my location. Since you’ve shown you have no intention of following up on your threat (preferring to hide behind your keyboard, you hypocrite) there’s nothing said yet via email that needs to be kept in confidence.
Or was this part of the “say the right things in public but express your true intent in private like a good little hypocritical coward” belief that you advocate?
Frank DiSalle: you have disgraced yourself and your colleagues today.
Says the wimp who hides behind his keyboard while making challenges she has no intent of carrying out.
BTW, you and I are done …
Oh goody. Well, lets finish with a complete record of your cowardice and hypocrisy then.
Frank DiSalle (via email):
Oh, goody. Another excuse. “Oh noes, I’m ill.” I’ll wait until you’re fully recovered from your infection, Frank. I already said you just name the time, so that’s, what, you’re fourth punk assed wimp of an excuse..
And you don’t have to find me. I’ve also said I’d tell you where I am. You really seem to have a pathological need to lie about what people have said so you can argue against something nobody is arguing for. Straw man much? (That’s rhetorical. We’ve all already seen the answer.)
Yup, I’m still a go at it. You show up and kick my ass. Demonstrate to me your superior reasoning skills.
Or are you still just gonna hide there behind your keyboard? (That’s also a rhetorical question, Frank. You’ve already answered it quite clearly.)
Hypocrite. Coward. Wimp.
It’s hard to tell whether the O.W.com trolls are either a) too dumb to realize that accepting a challenge to fisticuffs from one of them doesn’t put an iota of fear and trembling into us (just the opposite, actually) or b) too delusional to realize that after nearly a decade of their chicken-hawk, chicken-shit antics that nobody would hesitate to accept one of their challenges.
But Frank, just like Dennis, couldn’t try and weasel his way out of his own offer fast enough.
Good times. Good times.
Frank wrote:
” Right now , I am ill…
When I am well. . . .”
Shorter Frank: “HOLD ME BACK GUYS! HOLD ME BACK!”
LOL.
You guys are such a pack of idiotic clowns. No wonder America has given up on the Republican party.
Corresponding with Frank DiSalle is almost as much fun as the conversation that started when I told that Nigerian fellow I believed his email.
The Nigerian, of course, was more believable.