Why Republicans make sore losers

[kkddbb]

I don't think Cheney wants to be considered irrelevant now or after he is dead, historically. Cheney is now the new voice of the Repub. Party, along with Rush Limbaugh.

Meanwhile, Cheney prays for another attack to harm Americans so he will be able to feel good about himself and his place in History, in his mind---that is just not right!

If I were an intelligent, sensible Republican/Conservative I would be a little mift right about now about that...

liberal talking points. the left puts talking points on the screen and on these blogs and unfortunately people believe them and run with it. im sure glad i have a mind of my own. mslsd has certainly had some effect with little viewers they have

 

[kkddbb]

truth according to....

I read this interesting take on Cheney by a Republican, Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, who is former chief of staff of the Department of State during the term of Secretary of State Colin Powell. The video interview with him on the Maddow show is also worthwhile.

I'll put the link here but if clicking on it doesn't work, will someone kindly do that for me? Thanks.

The Truth About Richard Bruce Cheney:
"................. What I am saying is that no torture or harsh interrogation techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator for the entire second term of Cheney-Bush, 2005-2009. So, if we are to believe the protestations of Dick Cheney, that Obama's having shut down the "Cheney interrogation methods" will endanger the nation, what are we to say to Dick Cheney for having endangered the nation for the last four years of his vice presidency?

Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002--well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion--its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida. ......................"

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/05/the_truth_about/

the truth according to rachael maddow? yea, she's pretty credible. this is the woman that gets american history wrong on a daily basis. perhaps is because it doesnt fit her aggenda in minipulating the public or is is just because she doesnt know. ill let you decide.

 

[Rita]

The truth according to rachael maddow? yea, she's pretty credible. this is the woman that gets american history wrong on a daily basis. perhaps is because it doesnt fit her aggenda in minipulating the public or is is just because she doesnt know. ill let you decide.

.
Actually, no. ..If you will read the link, it is written by Republican Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff of the Department of State not by Maddow (only the video is of her show).

But I will be glad to post more of what he had to say.

Wilkerson: " .... So, when I got home last night, I thought long and hard about what I knew at this point in my investigations with respect to the former VP's office. Here it is.

First, more Americans were killed by terrorists on Cheney's watch than on any other leader's watch in US history. So his constant claim that no Americans were killed in the "seven and a half years" after 9/11 of his vice presidency takes on a new texture when one considers that fact. And it is a fact.

There was absolutely no policy priority attributed to al-Qa'ida by the Cheney-Bush administration in the months before 9/11. Counterterrorism czar Dick Clarke's position was downgraded, al-Qa'ida was put in the background so as to emphasize Iraq, and the policy priorities were lowering taxes, abrogating the ABM Treaty and building ballistic missile defenses.

Second, the fact no attack has occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11--much touted by Cheney--is due almost entirely to the nation's having deployed over 200,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and not to "the Cheney method of interrogation."

Those troops have kept al-Qa'ida at bay, killed many of them, and certainly "fixed" them, as we say in military jargon. Plus, sadly enough, those 200,000 troops present a far more lucrative and close proximity target for al-Qa'ida than the United States homeland. Testimony to that fact is clear: almost 5,000 American troops have died, more Americans than died on 9/11. Of course, they are the type of Americans for whom Cheney hasn't much use as he declared rather dramatically when he achieved no less than five draft deferments during the Vietnam War.

Third--and here comes the blistering fact--when Cheney claims that if President Obama stops "the Cheney method of interrogation and torture", the nation will be in danger, he is perverting the facts once again. But in a very ironic way.

My investigations have revealed to me--vividly and clearly--that once the Abu Ghraib photographs were made public in the Spring of 2004, the CIA, its contractors, and everyone else involved in administering "the Cheney methods of interrogation", simply shut down. Nada. Nothing. No torture or harsh techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator. Period. People were too frightened by what might happen to them if they continued. ...... "

http://is.gd/zBPD

.

 

[hnooe]

the truth according to rachael maddow? yea, she's pretty credible. this is the woman that gets american history wrong on a daily basis. perhaps is because it doesnt fit her aggenda in minipulating the public or is is just because she doesnt know. ill let you decide.

Hi kkddbb--I am an avid watcher of Rachel Maddow--Monday through Friday-I think she is brilliant! I see you're new to Sowal--welcome to sowal.

FYI: We usually back up our comments with examples, links, etc. Not quite sure where you are coming from with Rachel "manipulating the truth on a daily basis"--enlighten me/us, please!.

 

[TooFarTampa]

Thanks Rita. Not talking points but a seemingly very credible source from within.

 

[Andy A]

Yes.

That's like saying all cars/highways are safer because Grandma hasn't gotten in a car accident recently. I might suggest that while she hasn't gotten in an accident, many others have.

Seven years and counting, but who cares, right? We've more "important" things to worry abour other than losing our lives.

 

[Lynnie]

Seven years and counting, but who cares, right? We've more "important" things to worry abour other than losing our lives.

Hopefully Obama will keep us with a strong military. I think we were attacked in '01 because we appeared weak having just closed so many military bases.

 

[LuciferSam]

Seven years and counting, but who cares, right? We've more "important" things to worry abour other than losing our lives.

I am, and always have been more concerned with the threat of things such as violent crime, natural disasters, traffic accidents, and life-threatening medical conditions than I am with terrorism. The reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is because the Bush administration pulled their heads out of their asses.

 

[Lynnie]

I am, and always have been more concerned with the threat of things such as violent crime, natural disasters, traffic accidents, and life-threatening medical conditions than I am with terrorism. The reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is because the Bush administration pulled their heads out of their asses.

Makes no difference to me whose asses the heads came from~~~~~I am thankful we haven't been attacked again. ;-)

 

[LuciferSam]

Hopefully Obama will keep us with a strong military. I think we were attacked in '01 because we appeared weak having just closed so many military bases.

I don't think the strength of the military would make any difference. These are suicide terrorists. The threat of retaliation is not a deterrent in any way. Our perceived strength would not have made a bit of difference. Vigilance is the only solution. We were caught with our pants down around our ankles, plain and simple.