Cheney Disgraces Himself and His Office

Remove all ads!

One cannot help but be amazed at what has happened to politics here. That Cheney would stoop to this level causes some concern for those of us who still believe that those in public office should conduct themselves with a level of dignity.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040625/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_curse_3

 

There are surely worse things to worry about where your elected government officials are concerned than the language they use when arguing amongst themselves?

 

Perhaps it's not the way a politician is supposed to speak. However, if he speaks this way to a fellow politician it isn't such a great problem as if he said the same to a voter or, generally, a citizen.

Also, there has been given account of *what* the senator said, but not of *how* he said what he said. Provoking the adversary to anger is a common maneuver in politics, debates etc.

I don't exactly love Cheney, but I'd like to see it all before saying anything.

 

It appears to be true. If so, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. The Republicans don't really benefit from Cheney as a VP. If Bush wins in November, they will need a VP who can contend for the presidency in 08. Cheney wouldn't stand a chance. This may be the beginning of the end.

It is sad to see our elected officials act this way. Heat of the moment or not, Cheney should have known better.

 

In and of itself, while not exactly a shining example of how we want our public officials to act, it's also not that big of a deal since, as chev said, it's directed at another politician in the heat of the moment, and at not a private citizen.

Having said that, given the rest of the baggage Cheney is carrying, this serves to reinforce how pathetic this guy really is.

 

I'm embarrassed by it. Vulgarity is just efficient ugliness mixed with uncreativity. I mean, the English language is crawling with clever euphemisms that express anger and frustration so much more delicately and deliciously!

I wonder why the Washington Post was willing to print it, uncensored, without the usual ***s...how sad that this disgraceful display should only further coarsen our media culture.

 

Well, in that case I would more or less have said more or less the same, though in those cases I typically use Russian words.

 

I have never seen or heared Cheney apologise for anything, so I'm not really surprised. But it seems to indicate that that Senator hit a nerve and that Cheney is vulnerable and starts to feel and know it. Sounds like good news to me.

The earlier the US get rid of him and his sorry crew of blinkered ideologues the better. In the end, eventually, it has become clearer in the US public perception that Cheney was like THE driving force behind all the mess Bush's crew heaped up over the time. Without him - his bullying, his secondary government, his private propaganda & intel shop OSP in the Pentagon beyond congressional control, his overriding or bypassing dissent, his de-facto control over foreign policy for quite a while, him forming of public threat perception (just look at the speeches he gave) and his influence in the Whitehouse - the Iraq war would not have taken place.

I remember that I was laughed at for warning that a war in Iraq would destabilise the Middle East. And I got some "sissy euro cowards & Saddam's gonna kill us all!" rah-rah for that.
Two years later Bush's war has managed to turn Iraq into a bloody mess and ... to transform Saudi Arabia: The country, two years ago one of the safest places on earth for a westerner with very low crime is about to implode and has become a no-go area for westerners who get attacked and killed on a weekly basis. Surprised? How come? It's just like, huh, half-the-world told you so ...

I think that our foreign secretary Fischer put it nicely when he replied to Powell's scary spectacle at the UN, meant to prove that Saddam was a threat to the world and the US: "I'm not convinced."
That sort of scepticism would have served the US well two and a half years ago. Now, some 120 billion costs, 800 dead US soldiers (nevermind the 30.000++ Iraqis) and some 3000 mutilated soldiers later the US is wondering about what happened - like: "Oops. Something went wrong ... but don't expect us to apologize." Seems as if a good deal of America is sort of Cheney-ized as well.

/end rant mode

 

Another point to add weight to your argument, Ragusa - look at Sudan. The Sudanese civil war had slogged for almost two decades, 'til the US - egged on by Cheney and his religious-right cohorts - stepped in and squeezed both sides for a peace settlement. And now look what's happened! What was once a slow genocide of the South has now erupted into a full-scale slaughter in the Darfur. Cause and effect: the US interferes with the mild, regularized mass-murder of an Arab government in the name of "freedom" and "life", and all heck breaks loose. The African Union is flummoxed, the UN is overwhelmed with prior commitments and refuses to call it genocide, and Europe appears helpless to intervene. Northeastern AFrica has been completely destabilized, all on account of the US.

Whether Syria, Iraq, or Sudan - Arab governments are free to slaughter their own, and both the West and the "Arab street" yawn. But heavens forfend that an outsider do anything to alter those self-destructive governments - and heaven help the outsider that doesn't do anything to alter those governments, given the way Michael Moore attacked the US for briefly supporting Hussein and still supporting the House of Saud. Woe unto any US attempt to become involved in a place where it has selfish interests (like Iraq), or to try not to get involved in a place where it has selfish interests (like North Korea). Or poke its nose into places where it has no interests (like Sudan), or refuse to poke its nose into places where it has no interests (like Liberia).

Cheney - like the rest of the administration - needs to see the truth that the US, by dint of its existence, is darned if it does and darned if it doesn't. And Cheney has the swearing skills to say it more bluntly than that.

I bet we won't see Cheney apologizing for the Darfur deaths, either. Arrogant scum.

/end anti-rant

[ July 04, 2004, 22:54: Message edited by: Grey Magistrate ]

 

Oh Grey,

reading your anti-rant I feel like crying for the US - poor misunderstood light on the hill, damned if they do, damned if they don't It seems it is America's destiny to be blamed despite all their noble motives and good intentions Your whining is pathetic.

Well, when they are screwed anyway, whatever they do, why really care for the course of foreign policy? Why not hit the sh*t until it hits the fan?

Cheney's sudden love for the talibanesque islamist regime in Sudan and his interest in stability in Sudan seems IMHO much more related to the reported expectation to find oil in Sudan's south than with human rights or democracy - not things Sudan is particularly renowned for - or a rediscovered respect for human life on Cheney's side. If stability comes with a graveyard or through peace - Cheney likely gives a sh*t as long as the oil is delivered in time and cheap - and as a counterweight to other producers in the persian gulf area.

There was a time when the US appeared in the middle east as a fair and neutral party - a valued intermediary. Then the US were not damned for what they did. Under Bush's onesided approach that is so far away that it looks to me like a faint dream from grandpa's tales.

When people are angry about the US then they usually have substantial reasons - it's the (foreign) policy, stupid. When the US are meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, and sometimes violently and painful for these countries, a degree of grudge in return isn't really a surprise.
America's destiny isn't to be damned if they do and damned if they don't - not even under Bush.

 

Oh...good...heavens...

(That's as close to swearing as I can get.)

If all that Cheney cared about was oil, then why in the name of Thomas Hobbes did we keep cracking down on northern Sudan and our northern Canadian neighbor when the Sudan was happily pumping oil from the south through Talisman?

Weep with me, Ragusa, for Sudan is another darned if we do, darned if we don't. There's oil in the Sudan! So if we go in, it's clearly for the oil. But there's genocide in the west! So if we don't go in, it's clearly because we're failing on the job, just like in Rwanda. There are Christians in the south! So if we go in, it's clearly to appease the religious right. But those are Muslims in the west! So if we don't go in, it's clearly because of our global crusade against Islam (I mean, terror). But Chad is being destabilized! So if we go in, it's clearly to protect Chad's new oil pipeline. But Chad is being destabilized! So if we don't go in, it's clearly because we don't care about black Africans. But France and China have warned that they won't support a UN resolution endorsing military action! So if we go in, it's clearly because we have no respect for international opinion. But UN officials and global NGOs like Medecins sans Frontieres have already referred to the Darfur killings as genocide! So if we don't go in, it's clearly because we have no respect for international opinion.

And Australia is entirely peopled by criminals...wait, where was I?

 

What I wanted to point out is that America has a choice - a choice to be what it is now and what it thinks it still stands for but unfortunately stopped to do a while ago.

It isn't as if all these things like terrorist attacks just happen to America in miraculous ways. It isn't all because there are evil people out there who hate freedom and America because they ... hate freedom and America. There is always a root cause, and a good deal of it is a result of past and much more recent US foreign policy.

I as a German have got used to that, usually when I meet an english speaking person, WW-II is brought up in question three, if not earlier. WW-II is something we Germans have to deal with in one way or another overseas, that seems unavoidable. Alas.
America on the other hand has a great problem reassessing, reflecting on her mistakes. She seems to feel she doesn't make any. She is not used to justify herself for her actions.

It certainly is quite convenient to react on critique with whining that all the world is unfair to her, blaming America for everything, and that she is, as you said, damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. But is that so?
It's the conservative pundits "stay the course" line, because it wouldn't make any difference we can as well go on and play the ugly tough guy - but "damned if we do, damned if we don't" isn't an argument but a sentiment. Nobody loves me
A sentiment won't bring America any further, just leave her behind bewildered in a world she doesn't understand because she doesn't adress the problems the world has with her. And it does not contribute to, or is a substitute for, a solution.

That was, of course, hyperbole and polemic, but I felt that was necessary to make my point as clear as possible. No pun intended.

[ July 10, 2004, 11:51: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

This is now going way off topic but I just had to comment on this one. I seriously doubt that this is an problem just for Americans. Germany had to suffer an utter defeat in a brutal war before they could see their own mistakes, and even then most officers claimed that the only real mistake in WWII was the attack on Brittain. They were blind to the rest, to the complete incompetence of many of the high ranked officers, to the brutal enslavement and killings of prisoners, ethnic minorities and of course jews. You may claim that Germans have learnt something from this but I serously doubt it.

It has allways been difficult for nations and people to admit their own mistakes and they will very unlikely admit anything until it leads to a complete disaster.

 

In my view, it's the Germans that learned the most of all involved in WWII. Particularly compared to Finland for example, that still holds the SS in high regards.

I am under the impression you don't know much about Germans. They did their homework well. Tune in into German Television and you will not have any problem to find a series that pitiless deals with themselves and their past. Or read a German history book. You will not find anything romaticised, just the naked description of what happened.

And concerning the high-ranking officers, of course they didn't confess that they were wrong as long as they lived. They propably never believed that they did something fundamentally wrong. But I don't think that Generals that led their troops knowingly into starvation, cannabilsm and freezing to death are the material great heroic stories are about.

Or you can go to Auswiscim (Spelling ?), Poland Birkenau or Buchenwald or Bergen-Belsen or Dachau and look at the hair. Or everywhere else. All museums. They don't do offical SS celebrations like the do in Suomi.

In short, I think there is no land that keeps so much details about the atrocities of WW2 for every one to see than Germany.

[ July 10, 2004, 15:43: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

I think you misunderstod my point a bit, or more likely I expressed it rather badly. I was not trying to imply that the germans did not learn anything from WWII, I was implying that it required them to loose the war and loose it bitterly in order to learn. I am quite sure that the Americans would learn from their mistakes if something big enough would happen which would prove them that they made a mistake. People do not learn until their mistakes have some real and serious consequenses(sp?).

Oh really? Funny that I don't hold them in high regard. Neither does our Government in any way praise the SS. I would like to know where you've read of such a thing? And what's this about official SS celebrations? I've never heard about that either.

I have been in Auswitch, Ravensbruck and Sachsenhausen, so I've seen it and as I pointed out I am not trying to claim that Germans are ignorant to the horros of WWII today.

 

Umm...maybe you missed this thread.

Mon cher ami, please make clear (no pun intended) how the previous post, or ANY post I've ever written, can be construed as "whining" or a reliance on "sentiment". Seemed to me like a legitimate reply after you cast aspersions on the character of both Cheney and overall US policy regarding Sudan, abscribing monetary motives which would more rightly blight our French and Canadian friends (TotalFinaElf and Talisman, respectively), suggesting that one of the most "moral" (and from a realist's perspective, utterly stupid) policies of the Bush administration (making peace in the Sudan) was actually a truly immoral act.

Oh, wait...that sounds defensive...well, it's not my fault, it's the world's! Nyah nyah!

 

Ok, I went a little bit too far here. That was a rather gross mark pointing at the Finnish post-war ambiquity and problems having been a de-facto-axis-power plus traditional struggle with the Russians. Being perplexed after reading your post, that I obviously misunderstood after seeing your clarification now I put a little pepper in my post concerning the Finnish volunteer corps. Sorry.