EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
Popular content
Today's Top News
Liz Cheney Inherits the Family Business
Dick Cheney has long criticised Obama for admitting America's foreign policy failures. Now his daughter is getting in on the act
Once again the Cheney attack dog is on the prowl for Barack Obama. It's just not the Cheney you're thinking of. On Monday, in the Wall Street Journal, just two days after the New York Times reported that Dick Cheney concealed a secret CIA counterterrorism programme from Congress during the Bush administration, his daughter, Liz, assailed Obama on his recent speeches on US international relations.
Her argument is as simplistic as it is ridiculous: Obama doesn't spread the myth of American exceptionalism and thus engages in historical revisionism, which emboldens our enemies and hurts America. A high-level official in the Bush state department and a ferocious defender of her father's legacy, Cheney sees Obama's recent speeches in Trinidad and Tobago, Cairo and Moscow as either "an attempt to push 'reset' – or maybe to curry favour" with our enemies.
Why? Because Obama hasn't defended the standard tropes of the US cold war mythology in his own speeches or rebutted foreign leaders' less forgiving take on US foreign policy.
According to Cheney, Obama should tell our adversaries:
America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the cold war. The Soviets were not. The cold war ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat communism.
Anything less and Obama is pushing the historical "reset" button, because by proclaiming "moral equivalence between the US and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies."
But Obama has apologised for the right things to foreign audiences and has listened to anti-American screeds from foreign leaders because, here's the nasty little truth, those historical narratives have been pretty accurate.
Consider the two benefactors of US cold war policy that Cheney trots forth as examples: Iran and Nicaragua.
Regarding US relations with Iran during the cold war, Cheney argues that Obama's speech in Cairo "asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979."
Here's what Obama said:
For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the cold war, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against US troops and civilians.
Conveniently, Cheney, and even Obama, leaves out the context of why the US and UK supported the coup in Iran. In 1951, Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadeq nationalised Iran's oil industry, ending Britain's Anglo-Iranian Oil Company control over its precious natural resource. In return for helping with the coup, the US demanded that Britain cease its monopoly control over Iranian oil. After the coup, the US and UK installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the dreaded Shah, who ensured that US and UK multinationals received 80% of Iran's oil profits split down the middle. Under his dictatorial rule, dissidents were jailed, tortured and murdered.
It's not without irony that Cheney can write "the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind." Iranians dealt with the same kind of state terrorism under the Shah and his secret police, only this time trained and funded by the US. Yet Cheney fails to mention this inconvenient little fact.
Obama also annoyed Cheney because he didn't stand up to Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega after he "listened to an extended anti-American screed". While it's certainly hard to defend Ortega the man, the Sandinista movement he led did eventually overthrow the US-installed dictator Anastasio Somoza in 1978, and initiated many necessary social welfare policies, such as literacy and healthcare programmes and agrarian reform. In response, the US funded the Contras, which carried out a systematic, terrorist war against the Sandinista revolution, while mining Nicaraguan harbours. These offences led the International Court of Justice to rule against the US and order it to pay reparations to Nicaragua.
In his speech before the fifth Summit of the Americas last month, Ortega spoke about meeting Jimmy Carter. It's illustrative of American exceptionalism and hubris, considering what the US would have done to a country that violated its sovereignty and funded a terrorist army against it:
I had the opportunity of meeting with President Carter, and when President Carter was saying that "now that the Somosas were gone and that we had defeated and brought down the Somosa tyranny," he said, "it was high time for Nicaragua to change," and I said, No sir, Nicaragua doesn't have to change, those that have to change are you sir.
You have to change because Nicaragua has never invaded the United States. Nicaragua has never undermined and has never set mines in the US ports. Nicaragua has not even launched one stone against the American nation. Nicaragua has not imposed governments in the United States, therefore, I said President Carter, you are the ones who have to change, it is not the Nicaraguans who have to change.
It should never cease to amaze how conservatives like Cheney continue to view the cold war theologically, with US as the anointed messiah of civilisation facing the satanic forces of the Soviet Union. Both imperial nations put up impressive body counts in defence of their antithetical ideologies. And yet, the US didn't learn the value of nuance in foreign affairs with the same good/evil narrative pervading the "war on terror", driven by the same cognitive dissonance that allows engaging in acts we find rightly morally reprehensible when other regimes or terrorist groups do it. Hopefully this is beginning to change.
When you take a close look at Liz Cheney's grievance against Obama after seeing it in its proper context, it's easy to understand her definition of American exceptionalism: The US and its clients can torture, but others can't. The US can willingly violate the norms of war, but others can't. The US can subvert democracy wherever it wants, but others can't.
The rationale is as easy as it circular: Since the US stands for democracy, anything it does is in the best long-term interest of democracy. Why? Because the US says so. Let's borrow a term from Lenin and call it "democratic centralism", but on a global scale.
"I've spent a lot of time promoting democracy around the world," Cheney told the Washington Times on Monday, declaring herself open to running for political office. "It has made me really grateful for our system and has given me a real understanding of how important it is to participate."
With democracy practitioners like Cheney and her father, who needs detractors? By simply mouthing the word "democracy", they discredit it.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
38 Comments so far
Show AllOur "support for democracy" in the BushCheney years brought such brutality down on the people that we were "liberating" that now the very concept of democracy has been tainted in many eyes.
Bush and Cheney and their gang are neither Democrats nor democrats. They are CorporoFeudalists. They believe that they are the Noble Class of a feudal society, that they serve the new royalty: the CEOs and major stockholders of the major corporations. You can guess who the serfs are. Their entire eight-year occupation was dedicated to crashing the national and international organizations and treaties that would limit their personal and corporate sovereignty, from the ICC to the NPT to Kyoto to the ABM and any pesky domestic or international regulation on trade and financials.
I would expand that Exceptionalism to include Western Europe since they've been right with US the whole ride. And it has been the same reactionary, racist, pseudo-monarchist strain there that has risen in power, disproportionate to their numbers, since Thatcher and swept Europe, that keeps them on our bus.
There are so many reasons why Bush and Cheney should be indicted and their entire misAdministration be thoroughly investigated, breaking the Hubris of the Corporate Class would be a salutory side effect.
Sioux Rose
CV: Excellent post & analysis. Do you think Liz was raised in such an authoritarian family as to really believe all this tripe? I mean is something like Naomi Klein's treatise off limits to her mentality? OR is it closer to the adage about not understanding something if your paycheck relies upon that selective ignorance?
I, too, agree that indictiments ought be furthered in the case of this family, along with Bush's. The article YACHTIE has related reveals some kick ass skullduggery that goes back 5 decades to help explain the ghastly convergence of (diabolical) events now. I truly believe that the world's workers (and persons of color, the Indigenous, etc) are being forced to rise up. What with things as necessary as water being privatized while the price of food staples to the poorest of the poor are gambled on Wall St, there will soon be no other alternative short of a voluntary massive population "culling."
Sioux Rose: "Do you think Liz was raised in such an authoritarian family as to really believe all this tripe? I mean is something like Naomi Klein's treatise off limits to her mentality?"
Yes, it is hard to believe that some people are just not getting it no matter how many facts are placed in front of them. If I may try to explain from my personal experience: When I was in my early 20's (and before I went to university) I was searching for philosophical/political answers and stumbled upon Ayn Rand. I loved her from the get go. Why? Because she was so SIMPLE and BLACK AND WHITE. All of a sudden, I had an answer to everything. I devoured every book she wrote and even subscribed to her newsletter called "The Objectivist", which was her "philosophy".
I don't think I can describe it in a nutshell but basically it is what its called: "Objective" - it totally dismisses all social psychology, socialism, history, racism, sexism and (what Thatcher strongly believed): there is no such thing as "society" or "community". No decisions should be made with emotion, compassion, or any other human emotions. It's all supposed to be cerebral, "intellectual" and objective.
Altruism is the greatest sin of all. We are all individuals accountable for our own actions and not our brothers keepers. Laissez faire capitalism is the only rational system. Collective consciousness, collective compassion, protest movements, human rights movements are all considered to be the beliefs and actions of brain-washed sheep.
To be an person of character, of integrity, of honour, all ideals about humane societies, collectivism, a "we" mentality, and horror of horrors: socialism - all these "we" things, are to be dismissed contemptuously.
Friedman, Greenspan and I'm sure most right-wing(nuts)neo-conservatives are fans of Ayn Rand. Alan Greenspan actually said in an interview on Democracy Now (debating Naomi Klein, by the way) that Ayn Rand was his mentor.
Anyway, I, too, was a fan until I went to university and then did a 180. I found right-wing thinking simplistic and selfish. That's why it appealed to my young brain - I HAD A BLACK AND WHITE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING. (Ayn Rand actually wrote a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness" attempting to portray selfishness as noble and rational)
I can understand why the Liz Cheney's, etc. don't get it. They have closed their minds to any other concepts because its considered a weakness to even question your own ideals. Just like the radical evangelicals - try to convince them that maybe Jesus was not really the son of god but a philosopher ahead of his time.
There is a movie about Ayn Rand with Helen Mirrin playing the bitch herself. If you have read any of her silliness that passes for philosophy, you will instantly recognize what the arrogant harpie must have been like.
She had a devoted gaggle of disciples around her to feed her ego and dote on her continuously. SHE was utterly selfish, and could spout endless tirades to justify her stepping on everybody around her but when somebody else's selfish behavior offended her she morphed into the psychotic case study which many have written about.
Guess who was right there in person to touch the hem of her garment? Sir Alan of Greenspan himself.
Sioux Rose
NIETZSCHE: I would like to see that film. I adore Helen Mirin. She was magnificent as Morgaina in "Excalibur" and quite enchanting in other films. Your description of Rand's personal life sure fits her ultimate philosophy.
A friend of mine was a close friend of Bo Didley. Bo, who made it pretty big in the music industry had a typical Capricorn view of life. He just didn't understand why others did not succeed. Capricorn, born the mountain goat equipped to scale the highest summits, is internally moved by ambition. Some are born with incredible self-discipline and do fight the odds to prove themselves. However, not every sign has that kind of backbone, and regardless of race or gender (Ayn), those who possess a veritable "boot camp" psyche have no empathy for others who were born to walk in quite different mocassins. This is one reason I teach the Divine circle. Expanding our understanding of the range of human archetypes that mankind was destined to express would go a long way towards broadening tolerance and expanding empathy. One size NEVER fit all, nor does it reflect Divine intention. As Ritchie Havens sang, "There is a great secret to life: that there are only 12 of us, and they are... Aries, Taurus, Gemini," (etc).
Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of this movie. I googled and found that it was produced in 1999 and is available on DVD.
Helen Mirren is a brillian actor.
Sioux Rose
SEE: Thank you for the personal history and its revelation(s). I read Ayn Rand in my early 20's and while I dug the idea of human achievement (she seemed to celebrate the movers and shakers), it never resonated. Some people perhaps like succinct answers, life as recipe, a clinical/minimalist one-size-fits-all approach? Glad to know you rose over that cuckoo's nest. If you've been on C.D. any length of time I'm sure you've come across my explanation that Western religions/cultures unconsciously identify with Mars and therefore push this "you're on your own" philosophy. Europe has softened it considerably having experienced the full frontal assault of Mars (in the form of WWI and WWII) first hand.
One can, I suppose, understand an empathy deficit in any offpsring that would have been spawned from Cheney. The photo of him in the left column of today's C.D. resembles an attack dog. His grimace is such a permanent macabre sneer.
The Buddhists believe we are held to karma at the level of our understanding; and yet just as Western law states that ignorance of a law is not a sufficient excuse for substantially mitigating one's sentence, so, too, karma is not nullified on account of an "elected awareness deficit," particularly when one profits formidably from NOT knowing the pain one's beliefs & actions cause others.
Rose: Obviously you had more wisdom (or whatever) for Rand's "philosophy" not to resonate with you at all when you were young. I wonder if part of my attraction was that I'm an Aries? I know I was also an uneducated, provincial, naive small town girl from a logging town and had a craving for knowledge.
Well put: "elected awareness deficit". I know so many people who remind me of the kid covering his ears and bellowing "la la la la la la la la la la la......" when you try to point out that their support of, lets say, "free trade", or investing in agro business in India, or supporting the tar sands in Canada, etc. hurts countless people. They do not want to know. "Lighten up...don't worry...be happy...." they tell me. aaaaggghhhhh....
Sioux Rose
SEE THROUGH: It was an Aries woman, the only female child among 4 brothers, raised by an army colonel who turned me onto Ayn Rand bragging about the importance of "Atlas Shrugged." Her father, the typical authoritarian Capricorn treated her like "another son," and yet what I respected about him was his complete deference for his wife, who didn't seem to give a s--t about raising children. The children raised themselves.
In households where rules are more important than the extension of nurturing FEELINGS, it's natural for children to identify with personal strength and individual accomplishment. After all, they will need both! Aries represents the HEAD, whereas my sign LEO represents the heart. I've always marched to my own drummer, and was surprised when I got higher scores than some of my brainiac friends in classes where teachers really responded to my out-of-the-box thinking. Something in my heart/soul has always served as my compass. And even if I didn't have the wit or intellectual means to explain why something did not resonate, that interior compass directed me accordingly.
I think it is GREAT when someone transcends their past thought process, truly emblematic of the parable of the Prodigal son (or daughter). The hardest thing in the world is self-change. I struggle with that, too. We humans otherwise live the psychological equivalent of rats caught in mazes. Until we deconstruct the way we think life should operate (ourselves included) we can only follow the same redundant path in that maze. Somehow the apparatus alters when we truly inwardly arc to a new plane of reference. (Consider that the Zen Koan du jour!)
Lacking in wit or intellectual means? Nonsense! You are fishing for a compliment which you richly deserve. Be good to yourself if you believe in the karma you say you do.
What you are talking about is the nearest thing we have to free will.
I admit it. My body chemistry and my parents have made every decision for me. I am what I am and not through any free will of my own.
EXCEPT my acute dissatisfaction--even pain forced me to read the teachings of Jesus, Epictetus, Rumi, Cleanthes, Omar Khayyam, The Bhagavad Gita, and a few other sages over and over.
All we human animals are capable of understanding has been written. We need only to reflect on it, ponder it, hold it in our hearts.
Of course, I never would never have read the things that make my decisions for me had I not been in pain.
And there is this: "In our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart. And in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."
Sartre says that all consciousness is consciousness OF something. Bullshit. Pure consciousness is the sweet refuge of us all.
Sioux Rose
NIETZSCHE: Fishing for a compliment? Perhaps. I completely identify with, or should I say feel in empathy with your powerful post. With clients I often explain that without the constant irritation of that grain of sand, no oyster would bother to make a pearl.
John Bradshaw in his book, "Homecoming" stated that 90% of American families are dysfunctional; whereas Edgar Cayce stressed that "Family life is the hotbed of karma." All the Masters teach forgiveness. In my new book Moon Dance, in reference to the 8th chapter which examines the archetype of Scorpio (for which I chose Persephone), the premise that we spend much of our lives in a RECOVERY process is its thesis. Who has not had a wound from a parent or loved one? And doesn't reconciling the pain take us to the gateway of forgiveness?
I am glad that you have found resonance with things I've shared in this forum, as I see you as a wise soul, one of the forum's "elders." And if you are not elder in terms of biological time, than certainly this gravity of the soul shines through.
Lately I have had something of a clogged ear, and ran into a woman who is certified to do "ear candling." I never had that done. Seems she cleared one ear (I dive into the springs a lot) and now the other is clogged! So this morning when I sat out in my garden, the first day in weeks where it was not hot as hell and/or raining, I realized that this inner "fog/clog" is like a storm of tears I haven't cried loose. The old souls feel it all, and then to also feel powerless in the face of so much unnecessary human savagery is quite the test of souls. I think standing IN truth and seeking in every place we can to open others' curtains and pour a little of that higher light in, well, that is a calling all its own.
Thank you for being my friend, sometimes critic, often teacher.
"Laissez faire capitalism is the only rational system."
Give us a break.
Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny and in our world ignorance is not bliss, it's malignant. This particular malignancy is like others, in that if left untreated it affects the quality of life and life span of the host.
I would ask the you the question of how healthy do you think the GOP is, but why bother? I'm sure in your world, everything is just rational and peachy.
Why dont Leonard Les Cheney go play with her war criminal daddy pacemaker? Why do all repugs want to kill everything? Lets capture people like her whole family and turn them over to Iraq people that has had a family memebr murdered by these creeps.
Oregoncharles
Hey, as I remember and as the present informs me, the Democrats and Obama appear to be just as eager to kill people and anything else that gets in the way of empire - including innocent women and children. Let's be fair. There's plenty of blame for both corporate parties.
Would you agree to drop off Obama in the northern regions of Pakistan?
Yessir, certainly would because he will be exactly like Bush in another month or so. He has followed Bushes foot step right into being guilty of war crimes. By the way take Eric Holder with him.
US policy over the past 50 years has been our own worst enemy. There are very few places in South and Latin America that we haven't interfered with. Ask the Chileans how much they liked our interference in their economic and political lives when Pinochet was in power. Ask El Salvador the same question. That doesn't include the Haitians, the Cubans, the Cambodians, the Laotians, the Vietnamese, or any of the other places where the CIA stuck their faces and had people killed in the name of furthering OUR interests.
And the more we did that kind of thing, the less respect and the more hatred people in those countries people have for us, and it's well deserved. Kennedy had the right idea with the peace corps, who went out and actually educated people and helped them build homes, schools, hospitals, and helped them learn to feed themselves. THAT is what builds positive attitudes towards our country, not going out and helping rebel groups overthrow democratically elected governments.
The Cheneys should be made to go to other countries and actually be shown the results of that great "unmatched force for good" they brag about. What they did was to destroy whole countries in the name of being "good". It's a wonder that we haven't been attacked by a dozen or more small countries who are sick of our interference. For these people to be demanding that we continue this stupidity is just amazing. How much more damage do they think they should be allowed to do? IMHO, they have done FAR more than enough already.
gee, so liz cheney is as wacky as her dad
no surprise there
i wonder - if she shoots someone in th face does she get a mulligan for that like her dad
I guess it's a toss-up as to which (father or daughter) looks better in leather, whips and traces of blood.
They both can summon up a suitable sneer in the face of criticism, so, maybe it's now just a matter of style and their relative senses of torture chic....
The Cheney clan are the perfect argument for the inheritance tax. Lots of money combined with their psychopathic behavior spells trouble galore.
they are also a good argument for retroactive abortion, as are the bushes.
According to Cheney, Obama should tell our adversaries:
"You are all inferior scum who deserve to die for opposing the freedom and democracy we are trying, with the aid of the Christian God Almighty, to bring as a gift to the world. Go on, keep pushing us. We'll feed you a steady diet of Thermonuclear Death, or what Harry Truman called 'a reign of ruin'. The United States of Neo-Confederate America is merciful. It is patient. It is wise. But we have our limits as well as our pride. Oh, hell . . . skip all that and we'll just make it this . . . fuck you! . . . all of you."
I don't have an alternative, but a family is not the best way to raise a kid.
Every year I would see kids with the Liz Cheney Syndrome.
Their parents love them as extensions of themselves but hate them for being a unique person, different from themselves.
The 'child' can become old and still be trying to earn the approval of an arrogant, psychopath who sees himself (they are nearly always men) as the standard to which everyone else should be forced to conform. He will bully anybody he can, but his children get the worst of it. He sees his child's behavior as a judgment on himself, and is often physically and psychologically abusive.
Liz Cheney will spend her life atoning for being gay. She is desperate for the approval of her father. He sadistically withholds approval.
She thinks that what she feels for her father is love. He makes no attempt to conceal his indifference.
Just a guess, but it's an old story, and would explain a lot.
I must admit that it's easy (and very tempting) to portray the Dick as heartless and cruel bastard in every aspect of his life. We might as well assume that he keeps his wife chained in his basement while we're at it.
Yo people:
MARY Cheney is an out Lesbian.
NOT Liz.
Get your facts straight... er, correct.
True Mary is the out Lesbian, not Liz. But let's face it, Mary is as guilty as the rest of the family. She hasn't spoken out as an individual, even when she received national press coverage on her sexual orientation and her high paying career. She happily lives clinging to the coat tails of her Father and his legacy. You think she would have the powerful job and life she has today, if it weren't for her Father's connections? She is not like Reagan's son, who actually had his own voice and used it.
Funny how when her Lesbianism comes up, the Cheney's and company defer to the right to privacy argument. Sort of ironic for the guy who set up the biggest domestic spying system our country's ever known.
You would think the gay community would be confronting her and other high level administration homosexuals, whether in Bush's admin. or Obama's.
"Sort of ironic for the guy who set up the biggest domestic spying system our country's ever known."
is it also ironic, or (un)fortunate coincidence, that cheney spent some time working as a telephone lineman in Wyoming?
Pun is funny and thanks for the correction.
The Cheneys have come to be the ideal embodiment of all that's wrong with the US, the kind of greedy, corrupt, unrepentant, self-righteous whack-jobs that countless would love to kick in the teeth.
However, the world still refuses to learn. Too many have fallen for pretty boy Obama and as much as they would love to see the Bushies pay dearly for their crimes, they seem quite willing to forgive him for pursuing the same policies.
At least, that's the perception I have when I read articles like this one. Correct me if I'm crazy.
You seem to think that just wagging your mouth is "doing the right thing".
In the US that ain't crazy, it's just the status quo. How come the Cheney's are "still with us"?
"How come the Cheney's are 'still with us'?"
good question.
after 0's selection last November, cheney said something to the effect that "the people have spoken and thrown out the old guard, including me."
"After the coup, the US and UK installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the dreaded Shah, who ensured that US and UK multinationals received 80% of Iran's oil profits split down the middle."
Solidarity forever! We must never stop protesting the fraudulent elections in Iran until they give us back our oil!
I don't understand what the cheney's or any republican arsehold is complaining about obama's role as president since obama seems to be holding very close to the w&dick show and the other previous administrations including slick willie's that caters to all those entities all previous administrations sucked up to for their part in killing this country.
Well, maybe I have spoken too hastily here because obama is black, republicans hate blacks who don't do the republican or neocon biddings and both have to show a 'kindredness' for the minorities for PR sakes.
Well losing power is good enough a reason for them to complain about anything and everything; no matter how pathetic it makes them look.
Let's clarify one small point, shall we, Miss/Ms/Mrs/Mr/Mssss/Miiisss/M/Mrrr 'Nietzsche'. (Oh, are you the famous German philosopher? gee, I thought you were dead. Go figure.)
Liz/Mary/Dick/Lynn/the family dog's homosexuality or lack thereof has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. The imbecile has far more important things to 'atone' for, starting with her admittedly inherited) imbecility.
Now, 'Nietzsche', are you homophobic? Or were you just bullshitting us? If you're one of these 'religious' or 'Christian' types who seems to think the rest of us give a good goddamn what you think about homosexuality, think again. Of course, if you were being facetious, then do please disregard the foregoing. But considering the lack of any indicator in your posts that you were kidding, I for one will go on the record as saying that you need to raise your consciousness and your attitude and tone in these posts and shove the homophobia where the sun don't shine.
The Cheney family is a criminal one, I think that's clearly established, and Ayn Rand is a bloody twat. What needs focusing here is what to do to shout down and or incarcerate the likes of the Cheneys.
"shove the homophobia where the sun don't shine."
lovely touch of ironic twist!
(perhaps you can tell me - does The Hague Invasion Act have anything to do with fingers in dikes?)
You seem to be suffering from a high degree of generalized hostility. I'm sorry for that. I don't doubt that is causes you considerable pain.
There are anger management programs offered free of charge by most city and county mental health agencies.
According to this post and other sources, it appears that the majority of us will be destined to endure (and fight) more sequelae from additional debris fields.
You could write the Attorney General and remind him that we are legally bound by U.S. law and international treaties to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of torture.
http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html
It might help slow down the malignancy. In our world ignorance is not bliss, it's malignant.
The Cheney, Americas's version of Hitler. What a positive light he has shone on our nation. Because, myself, along with the rest of the world, are positive, this is the axis of evil.
Dubya,and this piece of work, cheezy, have made the US into a terrorist nation, or at least proven to all, that what ever horror amateur terrorists can muster, the US can multiply that 100 fold, and are more than willing to prove it. I miss our constitution, I thought it was a good idea, seemed to work well, when followed, it amazes me that, in
order to make us "safer", they do all they can to remove liberties, and restrict our "pursuit of happiness", in the lie they call "the war on terrorism", what a concept, like "the war on drugs", how about a war on ignorant political leaders, or a war on personal agendas, or a war on lying governmental war criminals? What was the reason for murdering Saddam, he killed some people, well, if that's grounds for dragging some poor fool before the world for execution, the line forms right behind dubya. 911 killed around 3000 Americans, bush/cheezy have killed more than 1.5 million, INNOCENT Iraqi's, and 4,500 Americans, for what?