Philosophical Multicore

Sometimes controversial, sometimes fallacious, sometimes thought-provoking, and always fun.

RE: Cheney Shows the Way

Posted by Michael Dickens on May 27, 2009

Dick Cheney is giving the Republican Party a demonstration of how to fight a popular president. Stake out defensible high ground, do not surrender an inch, then go onto the attack.

Isn’t that a wonderful beginning?

The ground on which Cheney has chosen to stand is the most defensible the Republicans have: homeland security. In seven-and-a-half years after 9-11, not one terrorist attack struck our country.

Is that so? What about these? (quoted from Wikipedia)

“A small explosive device exploded out front of a Starbucks in New York City destroying a bench it had been placed on.”

“An improvised explosive device went off inside a federal prison in California during a search Saturday, according to federal authorities.”

“Woodburn police Capt. Tom Tennant, and Oregon State Police bomb technician Bill Hakim were killed, and Woodburn Police Chief Scott Russell was critically injured after a bomb exploded at the West Coast branch of Wells Fargo in Woodburn.”

“An explosion at a personal injury law firm in downtown Dalton, Ga., injured four people, including at least one lawyer, and resulted in the death of the apparent bomber in what a federal law enforcement spokesman described as a suicide attack.”

“Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting, Jim David Adkisson kills 2 people and injures 7 in Knoxville, Tennessee.”

And that’s just since 2008. There were many more in the six preceding years. So great job on your research there, Human Events. It took me, what, two minutes to find five terrorist attacks?

And, unlike Obama’s position, Cheney’s is 100 percent reality based. He was there. He lived through this. He made the decisions to use the harsher techniques on the worst of the enemy who could yield the greatest intelligence to save American lives.

With all due respect (i.e. none), what the hell are you talking about? What does that even mean? It sounds like typical baseless propaganda.

“The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful and the right thing to do.” And they “prevented the violent deaths of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people.”

Who are you quoting? Oh yeah, and I really doubt that hundreds of thousands of innocent people would have died from terrorist attacks. Oh, but you know what does cause a lot of deaths? War. For example, the Iraq War. Am I implying something? Of course not! The Iraq War was necessary to preserve the freedoms that we Americans hold dear. All those people who died during the Iraq War weren’t innocent. They . . . um . . . deserved to die. Yeah, that’s it. They were sinners. Right.

[Cheney] charged The New York Times with virtual treason in exposing the program to intercept calls from al-Qaida and mocked its Pulitzer Prize.

So Cheney mocked the Pulitzer Prize, apparently as a tactic to draw attention away from the fact that he was breaking the Fourth Amendment. I hardly see the relevance. I must be missing something, since I am so foolish when compared with Cheney the Wise.

He charged Obama with endangering national security by “triangulating,” adopting a policy designed less to secure America than to unite and appease his political coalition.

Good for him. And I care because . . . ?

“There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.”

Safety? Ha! “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” -Benjamin Franklin

That Cheney is winning seems undeniable.

Oh, so it’s a contest now.

Not only has his approval rating risen to 37 percent, probably higher on national security, Obama’s coalition is cracking apart.

Not only is 37% still embarrassingly low, but you do not seem to understand how to speak in a coherent manner.

Harry Reid and a Democratic Senate voted 90 to 6 to humiliate Obama

That doesn’t seem very nice. We shouldn’t be humiliating each other, we should be working together!

Cheney is winning because he has been there

He has most certainly not been there. When we say “there” we’re talking about my grandma’s house, right?

Cheney deals with the concrete.

And Obama deals with the asphalt. So what?

We remember that scene

We do? Which scene? Who am I? RAWR!!

The former vice president with the crocodile grin has just shown the way.

What kind of cruddy last line was that? My last line is better.

In conclusion, we must remember the heroes of America; we follow not just our leaders, our soldiers, but the common man; when we become independent of Cheney’s tyranny, when we truly learn to lead, then we will at last be liberated.


One Response to “RE: Cheney Shows the Way”

  1. LRFLEW said

    The sentence is close to complete.

    “Not only has his approval rating risen to 37 percent, (WHICH IS) probably higher on national security, Obama’s coalition is cracking apart.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: