Is the D1ck Really THIS Mean??
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
April 25, 2009 1:49pm CST
Just take a listen, if you can, to MSNBC's Ed Schultz.
http://current.com/items/89993131_ed-schultz-cheney-wants-this-country-to-get-hit-again-for-political-gain-video.htm
If you're like me and have no speakers and if you haven't already heard what Schultz said, he basically stated that former V.P. the D1ck Cheney is "mean enough" to want this country to get hit again for political gain. My feelings about the former Vice President are no secret and the truth is I've been thinking pretty much the same thing. Others in the media have implied it - sort of - but nobody I'd heard put it out there quite so bluntly.
I HATE to feel this way about someone who was recently one of the most powerful men in the world and who spent eight years a "heartbeat away" from the Presidency but I honestly wouldn't doubt that Schultz is 100% right. The D1ck was always publicity shy, now you can't keep him from in front of the camera; he didn't want anything declassified pertaining to torture or interrogation techniques for "national security reasons", now he wants even more memos made public. I know it's really a simplification but the topic according to Cheney went sort of like this:
We don't do that...
We do it but it's not torture...
Well, maybe it's torture but it's legal...
Maybe it wasn't exactly legal, but it worked...
Any thoughts? Is D1ck Cheney THAT mean?
Annie
1 person likes this
3 responses
@jerzgirl (9233)
• United States
25 Apr 09
Dickless Cheney has always struck me as someone who would do well as a Mafia Don. He's devious, underhanded, scheming, and lacks any ethical standards. He's beholden to no one but himself and would (and could) eliminate anyone who got in his way. It wouldn't surprise me one bit that he might hope we were attacked again as it wouldn't surprise me if he rejoiced the first time as it provided the means to gain more control and power. I'd even go so far as to say it wouldn't surprise me if it were someday learned that he had solid knowledge of 9/11 prior to. I'm not saying he did - but if it turned out he did, I would not be shocked.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
25 Apr 09
I'm not entirely clear on what that has to do with this situation. I remember Daniel Pearl's family asked Cheney not to use his name after a speech he made, but that was after the fact. There's a big difference between saying a man's name and wanting a terrorist attack on this country.
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
25 Apr 09
I would not believe this Ed Schultz. He might have been envious and wants to blacken D*&ck Cheney's name. I mean it does not seem sensible for a former vice-president to wish America would get attacked. I can see him saying that he would wish Americans would come to their senses. As for the interrogation of the Terrorist prisoners in Gitnmo, I suppose if I were a fanatical Muslim who believed that Allah would reward me with at least 70 virgins in paradise, I could take more than you could give me, that being in solitary would be nothing to me.
I think instead of saying "how shocking! they are being tortured under the orders of the horrible former Republican Bush and his minions,'you have to think had Clinton ordered the questioning of the terrorists, and the interrogation whether there would have been a 911.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
26 Apr 09
I don't think it's a matter of believing Ed Schultz or not, he was simply stating his own opinion. As for "blackening" the D1ck Cheney's name, I don't think it can be made any worse, his nickname has been Darth Vader for years now. I also don't think it has anything to do with Cheney being sensible or not, it has to do with his decency and humanity, of which I think there is none. This isn't a Republican or a Democratic issue, it's an issue of right or wrong and torture is wrong.
Annie
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
26 Apr 09
"it has to do with his decency and humanity, of which I think there is none"
You still haven't explained why you feel that way Annie. Is it because he looks creepy? Is it because he's a republican? Is it because he supported waterboarding TWO terrorists to prevent a second 9-11 in Los Angeles? Is it because along with Bush he defeated Al Gore in a close election?
In my opinion he's got a cleaner record than the man who went to a church headed by a racist pastor for 20 years and started his career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.
