Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Deceit of Shakespearean Proportions
Behold this unctuous knave, a disgrace to his nation as few before him, yet boasting unvarnished virtue. The deceit of Dick Cheney is indeed of Shakespearean proportions, as evidenced in his new memoir. For the former vice president, lying comes so easily that one must assume he takes the pursuit of truth to be nothing more than a reckless indulgence.
Here is a man who, more than anyone else in the Bush administration, trafficked in the campaign of deceit that caused tens of thousands to die, wasted trillions of dollars in resources and indelibly sullied the legacy of this nation through the practice of torture, which Cheney defends to this day. Still this villain claims that, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the horrid methods he endorsed were a necessary response to the threat of Osama bin Laden. How convenient to ignore that it was Barack Obama, a resolutely anti-torture president, who made good on the promise of Cheney and the previous administration to take down the al-Qaida leader. 
Former Vice President Dick Cheney gestures as he speaks to troops at a rally in 2006. (photo: AP / Ed Zurga)
Not to mention that bin Laden was killed in his hiding place in Pakistan, a nation that the Bush administration had befriended after 9/11 by lifting the sanctions previously imposed in retaliation for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, a program connected with the proliferation of nuclear weapons know-how and the sale of nuclear material to North Korea, Libya and Iran.
Pakistan joined with only two other nations, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, in granting diplomatic recognition to the Taliban government that provided a safe haven for al-Qaida as bin Laden orchestrated the 9/11 attack. But instead of focusing on the source of the problem, Cheney led the effort to overthrow Saddam Hussein, who had ruthlessly hounded any al-Qaida operatives who dared function in Iraq.
You don’t have to slog too deeply through Dick Cheney’s advertisement for himself to grasp not only the wicked cynicism of the man but also how shallow are his perceptions. He recalls his college years in the 1960s, when he was a draft-deferred young Republican during America’s murderous adventure in Vietnam—in which more than 3 million Indochinese and 59,000 Americans were killed—as a time of career advancement through strategic Washington appointments.
The war that left Martin Luther King Jr. condemning his own government as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” is condemned in Cheney’s memoir only for the reactive violence that he attributes to anti-war student protesters. We are told, in a reminiscence of his days as a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin, that “in May 1969, students threw rocks and bottles at police trying to shut down a party on Mifflin Street,” but there is nothing of napalmed Vietnamese or U.S. troops in body bags.
That same May, young Cheney’s Republican contacts in Washington would pay off when he secured an appointment in the Nixon administration working for none other than Donald Rumsfeld. Cheney recalls that he didn’t know he was “signing up for a forty-year career in politics and government—but that was exactly the right call.”
Those 40 years, interrupted by a lucrative stint at defense contractor Halliburton, saw Cheney rise to become secretary of defense and later vice president, presiding over wars that put him in considerable conflict with Colin Powell. It is Powell—who was experiencing the reality of war in Vietnam at the time Cheney was winning bureaucratic battles in Washington—who is scorned in Cheney’s memoir as the hopeless dove.
It was the more cautious war veteran Powell who, as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the first Iraq war, proved to be far more effective as a leader than Cheney, who was then secretary of defense. What is confirmed by Cheney’s memoir is that he seized upon the second Iraq invasion as a way of settling scores with his adversary by assuming the role of an ultra-militarist.
Powell, who, inside the administration, clearly opposed the invasion of Iraq—“If you break it, you own it”—was cast as a puppet who in a dramatic appearance before the United Nations lied to the world when he said Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. But despite Powell’s woefully misplaced sense of loyalty to President George W. Bush, Cheney is merciless in condemning the general for allegedly undermining the administration. Powell has fired back at what he termed Cheney’s “cheap shots” and reminds us that “Mr. Cheney and many of his colleagues did not prepare for what happened after the fall of Baghdad.”
It is not clear that Cheney is a true believer in military mayhem as much as he is an uncontrollable careerist who finds war talk a convenient tool for advancement. He seems to have no real sense of the cost of the Iraq War beyond what it might have done to hurt his own legacy. If his memoir has any enduring value, it is not as another offering of hollow excuses for an unjustifiable war but rather as a study in what the famed historian of European fascism, Hannah Arendt, termed the “banality of evil.”
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...
99 Comments so far
Show AllSiouxrose,
As usual you misrepresent the thought of my post. I in no way subliminally normalized all the torture, depraved indifference to life, and wanton killing done at Dick Cheney's behest. I also did not downplay Dick Cheney's evident evils nor give what is morally objectionable a pass. Your assertions that I did so are nothing short of despicable lies and have no place within reasonable discourse between rational individuals.
If you go back and read my original post you will note that I stated unequivocally that in my view Dick Cheney is an odious figure much like abominable American figures such as Robert McNamara and Henry Kissinger. I also stated quite explicitly within my original post that Dick Cheney during his service as Secretary of Defense during George H.W. Bush's administration and his service as Vice-President under George W. Bush was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and untold numbers of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. I drew an equivalence between the blood that is on Dick Cheney's hands and the blood of nearly 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laoatians that is on the hands of Robert McNamara and Henry Kissinger.
My comments on Dick Cheney as a "desk murderer" were within the context as the term was used by the political theorist, philosopher Hannah Arendt in her description of Adolph Eichmann and the "banality of evil."
In my original post, I pointed out that Hannah Arendt, who was an observer of Adolf Eichmann' trial and reported on the trial in The New Yorker, recorded that Adolf Eichmann demonstrated that he had a clear understanding of philosopher Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. Kant's categorical imperative has been characterized as a "universality principle". Kant stated:
"Act according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.",
The categorical imperative requires that we act in a manner that we would will everyone to act.
The disconnect between Adolf Eichmann's demonstration of his clear understanding of Kant's categorical imperative and his failure to apply the categorical imperative in his actions, in which he sent countless Jews to their deaths, raised the question for Hannah Arendt as to whether "evil is radical or simply a function of thoughtlessness-the tendency of ordinary people to obey orders and conform to mass opinion without critically thinking about the results of their action or inaction.".
It was Hannah Arendt's view that Eichmann was not inherently evil. She stated that he had forgotten how to think critically. That is why she referred to him as a "desk murderer".
The intent of my original post was to suggest that I see parallels between Eichmann and Dick Cheney. Cheney much like Eichmann probably has a clear understanding of Kant's categorical imperative or the maxim sometimes referred to as the "Golden Rule". Much like Eichmann, Dick Cheney lost his ability to think critically. Dick Cheney is a thoughtless man who conformed to neoconservative ideological thinking whereby he became callous in his actions. The callousness of his actions have resulted in the deaths of many.
I have stated in this forum on numerous occasions that in my view Dick Cheney is an un-indicted war criminal and should be brought before the ICC at the Hague and placed on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
In my view, if you examine Dick Cheney from the perspective that Hannah Arendt examined Adolf Eichmann, Robert Scheer's use of Hannah Arendt's term "the banality of evil" to describe Dick Cheney and Dick Cheney's recently published memoir is appropriate.
In the future when you lack a clear understanding of anything I have written, please have the decency to ask me to clarify my thought before you carelessly misrepresent and attack what I have written.
dwyerj1
Excellent post....this time I will get the correct author....
You are right on the money...
Mr. Cheney, "....does not suffer from the adoption of a "wrong" ideology....does not simply lack empathy for select human beings....He, [is] inherently evil... he led us all through excitation of our fears ....against all those who reject "our way of life"...[that] it is "holy" to torture...break down doors....execute unarmed...foreigners in their own homes!....such a culture formed the monstrous conscience of Mr. Dick Cheney..."
The premise that I hold is that in1946 the psychiatrist diagnosing Adolph Eichmann, completely misunderstood the nature of his REAL psychiatric condition and pathological personality disorder....not disimiliarly to current authors, journalists and media commentators completely misinterpret Dick Cheney's REAL mental pathology...
Notwithstanding, ofcourse your "inherently evil" label which although infers a religious overtone....may appeal in simply covering a "mutitude of sins"...meaning of course adducing to Dick Cheney's endogenous pathology....
What a peice of work he is....eh
Cheney and Obama are alike in their pursuit of blood and treasure. The style may be different, the rhetoric polished, but the horror is the same.
My thoughts exactly. Talking about the banality of evil, whats worse, the obviously corrupt and deceitful, or those who provide cover for, and continued deception in the interests of very evil people? What is worse, one whose face betrays his soul's dark inner workings, or one whose face reassures us of a false benevolence and concern?
Look instead at the collective and effective results of both sets of administrations, and it becomes obvious that under Obama, the horrors of Bush and Cheney continue unabated.
And what is this repeated garbage of the heroism of the so-called bin Laden assassination? Even if it wasn't all a prime time fantasy (my strong suspicion), it was still a despicable and anti-democratic act, both a disgrace to this administration, and the Nobel Peace Prize held by this president.
Finally, to those on the left who want to go after the Bush administration while giving the continued bloodletting and corporate and financial corruption a pass are just part of the true banality of evil, and represent probably the most trenchant obstruction to true progress, because they all too well allow to believe that 'responsible people are already looking into correcting the problem'... AS IF!
Finally, those who continue to deny the undeniable plausibility that WTC was a pre-planned demolition operation, not a surprise assault, continues witlessly to prop up the horrific and world controlling memes of empire, just as Cheney hopes you will do. The funny thing about all this criticism of Cheney coming from 'the professional left', which also largely glosses over his likely role as a grand architect in America's Reichstag Fire, help Cheney and his cabal immensely! Good job progressives... You're part of the facade protecting them all!
Bravo,Salusa. Is it my imagination or have your views grown less tolerant of offical narratives, and more radical? If memory serves me well, a year ago you showed a more centrist regard... or willingness, perhaps, to allow the fruit of the Obama harvest to show itself.
In any case, whenever an intelligent mind.. be it Michael Moore, David Michael Greene, Dave Lindorff, or so many other thoughtful writers featured on CD, cease and desist from giving the Democrats a free pass on all the calamitous ill-fortune (humanly engineered) of our times, it is worth welcoming them onboard. (A few in these threads can only muster the response of blaming such persons for their former positions, as if enlightenment need not happen, as if people do not have the capacity to grow or change when presented with information that compels such processes.)
I would make one correction to your post, and it involves LANGUAGE.
You wrote: "Good job progressives."
I don't think a true progressive agrees with war against any foreign nation, particularly when there's been no genuine attack on the U.S. The true progressive would look for ways to handle matters diplomatically, as opposed to seeking a reason to spill yet more unnecessary blood.
Just as Fox TV paints Obama as by turns a liberal and a socialist, even in this forum, the identifiers are muted, or should I say polluted, by all sorts of irrelevant characteristics.
Hi Siouxrose, thanks for your response, as well as your consistently clarifying and empowering presence on the CD boards.
After some overdue reading on the foundation and history of Marx and the Socialist movement, I went on to read about the Federal Reserve and the options available to us to change the social/financial parameters which have been behind humanity's continued servitude to wealthy interests. My reading has only reinforced my conclusion that Barack Obama is simply an apologist/activist for these interests (or possibly worse), who, while positioned as a fighter for the cause of progressives the middle class and fiscal sanity, serves as the perfect Trojan Horse to completely seal the deal for private and consolidated wealth. However, this is not a shift from my earlier position....my illusions about the man have been shattered now for some time.
My consistent objection on CD to others denigrating specific, supposedly compromised leaders on the left has been based on these leader's access to real power (or lack-of therein). Both Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinch (among others) have been stalwart voices speaking reason and truth to the US electorate, but with admittedly *less power than they need* to change our current paradigms significantly... This is a fault of the relatively weak position they are in, not a fault in their ideology. That they cannot come out and directly make statements against the official 9-11 narrative, is something I appreciate and understand, due to the role they serve as a voice serving their constituents... Being dismissed as a conspiracy theorist will harm, not help their ability to pass helpful legislation.
On the other hand, it is the duty of those with sufficient power (e.g. The president) to challenge prevalent false narratives... This is also the duty of real journalists and professional commentators/authors. These people are the ones I claim are betrayers to the progressive, and leftist, and liberal cause, not those who are already dedicated to serving the specific needs of their constituents, and who have very specific limitations imposed by their office. Being a Senator or House Representative requires deference to those in greater positions of power. Being the president, or being a journalist requires the opposite.
Cheers and Namaste Siouxrose, I hope that helps clarify my position.
Thank you. I often find myself agreeing with your posts. I recall your stating something I felt was quite enlightened about a blend of sociaism (for certain departments of life and shared services) and capitalism in others. I thought it was a great premise, as so many things in life work best when they are hybridized. Purists who seek an either or objective, may find they'll never arrive at their Promised Land.
PHOTIUS: Two other posters took issue with the tone/subliminal message of your post, yet you only directed your response at me. Curious. Look, I realize that my passionate expressions sometimes have people mistaking the attitude behind them. None of us are entirely skilled in the art of recognizing how we're perceived by others. There is a chilling cold, analytical tone to your analysis that just seems to sweep the good and the bad up into one glob of undifferentiated dust, where all aspects are generically equivalent.
I know you've stated (in the past) that you were an Atheist. And you've also spoken about your (past?) military service. Possibly your emotions are suppressed, and therefore no sense of empathy transmits. There are about 4 posters (and I'm not talking about the obvious nuclear energy trolls) who are amazing in their grasp of scholarship, their reach of historical facts and such. However, most of these individuals sound to me like Ph.D. researchers who have never felt a drop of rain, nor experienced their heart opening to the touch of a child. It may be a high I.Q. but LOW E.Q. (Emotional "intelligence" quotient).
Something HUMAN is missing. I'm sorry if that offends you, but that is the "take" I get from your posts. There are some posters who have been banned and returned here, and I immediately identified them. I can often read between the lines, although this is hardly a perfect "art," and I may have been wrong on occasion. My "read" on you suggests a mind like "Dr. Lector" from "Silence of the Lambs." Your intellect has worked so well to convince you that there's nothing higher on the spiritual totem pole than human logic, and that is a very chilling place to occupy. High-functioning intellects that are utterly convinced that MANKIND is all that is... feel free to answer to nothing beyond the human ego. In my view, they are more than capable of (and often the founders of) untold disasters.
You and I "reason" from opposing sides of the would-be spectrum. Nonetheless, I will say that you're smart, well-informed, and that I sometimes find merit in what you have to share. Nor would I wish that you stop posting... often you add something of value to this forum (in spite of our abundant differences).
Tentative peace?
re: "I recall your stating something ... never arrive at their Promised Land."
Hi SR, thanks for the kind words.
As I see it, humanity will never achieve political balance/lasting peace if the solution must be imposed upon us by any external authority (either a Socialist or Capitalist authority), without that authority first gaining our own (each and every one of us') personal and authentic agreement with the premise. This cannot occur under any monolithic ideology, whether it's 'for our own better interests' or not.
What I envision, is not something I envision... its just the way it has to be, as far as I see it. There is no such thing as a world free of either 'socialism' or 'capitalism'. These are observed realities at work constantly in the world around us. Getting rid of either is not really an option. Getting them to work together is the only solution
The relationship between economics and politics is quite similar in some ways to the relationship between religion and politics. First of all, there should be a strong wall of separation between the two so that both sides can effectively serve the purposes for which they are intended. In their original conception, the market and its purpose, politics, and its purpose, and religion with its own, all are meant to be social goods, not evils. Its when you mix them together you corrupt them.
So, first, people have to stop thinking of politics and economics as part and parcel of the same thing. One is Socialism, in action, by definition, and the other is Capitalism in action, by definition. Politics is, and can be nothing but a social service... it is the action of the society attempting to come to socially acceptable decisions. The market can be nothing other than the expression of the action of capital, and its movement as a 'currency' (like electricity or water) among the populace. Yes, politics is concerned with money, and to some degree regulating its flow, but again, its purposes are corrupted by the direct influence of money, which should be understood by any kindergardner (but don't tell that to the SCOTUS).
My point being that any politics that does not consider its purposes to be socialist, is either lying, or it is faulty. Politics is simply about working together to benefit society, and if political influence isn't being used to help 'the People', it will be used to help someone, thus the 'lemon socialism' we are stuck with today.
What is important is that socialism cannot approach its constituency as representing 'group values' or 'group opinion', because this does not exist, and those who claim they represent this are liars and aspiring autocrats. Socialist leaders need to take a new perspective on what creates social values, and it's not groups, it's individuals. A socialism that serves the world must serve its individuals and their needs first... thus we come to the market...
The market is supposed to be the expression of unabashed selfish endeavor, and attending to the needs of individuals. We seek to exploit opportunity to make our lives, and our loved ones' lives better... to protect, to invigorate, to enrich ourselves. But the problem is that Earth is finite. Growth is finite, and always requires its equal and opposite quantity of death in which to grow. Consequences of untempered exploitation expose the weakness of selfishness unhindered by awareness, consideration... and ultimately kindness. In other words, for Capitalists to take, they must be expected to give, far more than currently expected.
Exploitation is a neutral term, originally positive, currently pejorative, but ultimately of a dual nature: compensated or uncompensated. Who minds having their abilities exploited if they are compensated sufficiently afterward? It's time that the Earth gets its chance to feel some sense of satisfaction for her endless sacrifices... Labor power for Earth... She must be compensated by strong taxation that reverses the damage done by those who have been exploiting her resources without proper compensation.
Changing the subject, I'm not familiar with your history with Photius, or on the issue of atheism as you have covered it with him/her. My only observation is this: In my experience, having had a chance to get to know many 'atheists' and 'believers', I've found that many of the former have a far better gauge of morality than the latter. I certainly don't group you in that statement — you don't appear to me to be an adherent of strict dogmatic traditions, xenophobic to other views. But even some peoples' 'atheism' can be spiritually sound, advanced even... Just as some people's spirituality can by corrupt and shallow. I'm not familiar with the history, but just sayin'.
Cheers and Namaste... and as usual, how'd this turn out so long!?
philiphoko
"Cheney and Obama are alike in their pursuit of blood and treasure. The style may be different, the rhetoric polished, but the horror is the same."
I suspect that the article was written as a pre-emptive subtle demonization of anyone correctly equating Obama's behavior with Cheney's behavior. It's a propaganda piece to distort logical reasoning, period. Of course it had to originate from the "left" to be credible. Amy Goodman was in on the Cheney Boogeyman parade. When she said the "much anticipated book by Cheney", I said WTF? Much anticipated!!!? From a serial liar? Give me a break!
So what's the PR hidden message that is supposed to slip into our brains without us being aware of it? Cheney is bad, bad, bad and Obama may be not so good, but deep down he is really, really good.
These sly media faux leftist types are so clever.
Robert, you do serviceable reporting, but I could barely read past your first paragraph because of your spin, which face it, is a nice way of saying "lies".
Cheney is one of the worst pieces of scum in history (actually not fair to scum) and he embodies deceit of Shakespearean proportions but your opening also traffics in deceit. Yes, lying comes as easily to Cheney as it seems to come to liberal Obama apologists who try to also re-write history; but history is not changed.
Cheney did all you accuse him of and more, but his policies continue in a much larger way with Obama, the Bush Lite President. America has tortured people as policy since its inception. Cheney only brought it into the open to brag about it. Obama claimed to be anti-torture but has only escalated it. No closing Gitmo, no withdrawal from Iraq, bigger escalation in Afpak, far more drone attacks, expansion of torture at Bagram, and far more.
To be fair, Obama campaigned on expanding Afghanistan, yet somehow, with the help of conniving press, Obama was packaged as ant-war/anti-torture, but it was a lie. Bush/Cheney's/and now Obama's wars rage on.
It is FACT, not conspiracy theory, that there was so little evidence that Osama had a thing to do with Sept 11, that he wasn't even wanted by the FBI over it. It beggars reality to think a guy in a cave made our defenses distracted that day. It beggars physics that jet fuel brought down jet crash resistant buildings into almost their exact footprint. It also beggars truth to think a man nearly dead on dialysis partied 10 more years in Pakistan, and there are more holes in his killing story than there probably is in him. Why not try him? Because the real "conspiracy theory" Is the official story of Sept 11th.
All liars suck, as do their lies, but why help an utterly rouge government spin their lies? Why point a finger at one liar, granted an instigator, yet ignore, and excuse, or even give the benefit of the doubt, to further liars? Obama is a bate and switch candidate simply carrying on Bush/Cheney policy. To deny this is also deceit of Shakespearean proportions.
I always thought the conservatives opposed having criminals profit from writing books about their crimes??? Or is that only the poor crooks that they're talking about when they argue that?
That's only for crimes against the rich. Crimes against humanity are fair game.
In the second paragraph of Scheer's article, we find the followings words which are endorsed by the author:
"Barack Obama, a resolutely anti-torture president... ."
Really, Mr, Scheer, do you take us for such fools?
I won't even comment on the fact that Scheer apparently stands behind the official conspiracy theory of what happened on 9/11.
He also ignores, as does the 9/11 Commission in its Report, Norman Mineta's testimony before said commission regarding Cheney's behavior in the presidental bunker on the morning of that fateful day.
Furthermore, Cheney is not a banal evil doer, but a very deliberate one. Cheney was under no compulsion, as was Eichmann (which, of course, does not excuse in the least), to do what he did. He always chose to do what he did. He joined the Project for the New American and endorsed its war mongering initiatives (he is one of the signatories of the PNAC's statement of principles). He is one of the main architects of the neo-conservative agenda (the framing of which goes back to the 1980s), along with Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, all disciples of the militarist and imperialist Albert Wohlstetter, one of the models for Dr. Strangelove. He pursued a very deliberate path that eventually led him to the position he occupied under the George W. Bush presidency.
OIKOS: Right on! I hadn't read down the threads to your post, when I added mine.
To Siouxrose, Aug 31 2011 - 3:31pm:
Thank you!
I don't agree either with Photius's appeal to the concept of the banality of evil with respect to Cheney.
As I see it, Cheney is much closer to figures such as Goebbels and Himmler (the head of the SS), than to Eichmann. Cheney is a man who has opted for evil, insofar as he has made choices that are immoral, illegal, murderous, purely power oriented, and even cynical and sadistic. Cheney is a power-positivist, which is to say that he holds the view that might is right, and behaves accordingly. He also seems to be something of a sociopath.
OIKOS: I totally agree. I guess when a bright mind like Photius puts Cheney into what feels like the cosmetic category of desk murderer, it seems so casual, an easy dismissal that absolves him of the evil motives that have driven his career for decades.
I recently left a post suggesting that science had done humanity wrong in making the type of heart device that could keep a monster like Cheney alive this long... result? One prepared to stamp out how many thousands of other lives? For one person to beieve he has the right to command others to life or death circumstances is barbarity on a grand scale. In fact, with the MIC daily manufacturing the latest generation of WMD, to have minds like Cheneys near to the control panel ough to be anathema, if not impossible.
I rage against what I term "Mars rules," to point out the degree to which our society has become militarized; and it's not just a war on foreigners, or the underclass, or unions, or terrorism, it's a war on LIFE, on every ecosystem that's required for the sustainability of living beings.
Until the military is reined in, very little of merit will be accomplished in America.
Even after our own Gulf got hit with Katrina, and then the BP disaster, even after the fires raged dangerously close to Los Alamos, even after the Washington Monument was earth-quaked into a crack... even now, no sane course corrections emerge?
All around us cautionary tales are at play, and until those with power wake up, or enough citizens FORCE that awakening, we are truly passengers on a vast Titanic. It's maddening to me to feel like Cassandra, and note where this "vessel" is heading, and be assaulted verbally for speaking this truth, or otherwise silenced, (when not marginalized). I am far from alone in my efforts to impart specific insights... instead, to see the air waves dominated by really stupid people like Michelle Bachman, or unapologetic hate mongers, like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck... why it is sickening. This is the time when the media and air waves should be utilized to prepare citizens, or guide them into new behaviors,along with a HIGHER understanding.
In any case, I appreciate our exchanges, and the fine points you bring to this forum.
To Siouxrose, Aug 31 2011 - 11:12pm:
Yes, the military-industrial complex (and that includes Wall Street, of course) is holding this country hostage and laying it to waste. Of course, in the process, it will undermine itself.
Oikos.....
ba·nal·i·ty (b-nl-t, b-)
n. pl. ba·nal·i·ties
1. The condition or quality of being banal; triviality: The banality of the speaker's remarks put the audience to sleep.
2. Something that is trite, obvious, or predictable; a commonplace: Television commercials are full of banalities.
Good post....but as the definition suggests, my contention being Cheney exhibited qualities of being both banal and deliberate...when it suited...astutely and cunnungly a psychological "shell game".....to keep his opponents and rivals [for which he had many] continually guessing or on the back foot....potentially ONE of the reasons why he had remained in power for son many years...
best regards
simonhhh
Barack Obama... "a resolutely anti-torture president"
Now there's a load of crap.
http://www.gpln.com/timetotellthetruth.htm
Gosh, Powell and Cheney are exchanging barbs. Well, between the two of them I'm for the pacifist Powell because I know he's a honorable man.
How do I know?
Look, here's a drawing of a truck carrying Powell's honor on it.
"Look, here's a drawing of a truck carrying Powell's honor on it."
_______________
That's what I thought it was, too.
But after scrutinizing the satellite photos under extreme magnification, it turned out to be a Porta-Potty.
I agree with the CD "Morning Crew" comments of polycarpe, Caleb Abell, RickWright, WhiteRose, qatzelok, Haymarket Orphans, and a straggler or two.
One can't denounce and condemn Deadeye Dick Cheney, the very embodiment of diabolically scurrilous and reprehensible knavery, long and hard enough.
But it's unfortunate that Scheer's indictment is riddled with spurious blandishments and conventional-wisdom factoids about bin Laden, al-Qaida, Obama, and the still-mysterious catastrophic events of 9/11/01.
It's a shame that a little bit of that atrocious "unctuousness" seems to have rubbed off on the well-intentioned Scheer.
celebration,
I've noticed the same thing.
It is telling that CD doesn't post Cynthia Mckinny articles. Also Sibel Edmonds should be read here. Both those people are honest, intelligent and knowledgable of how far the rot goes in our government and aren't afraid to say so.
Maybe that's why they aren't here.
dm_dorman: Those are unsubstantiated right wing talking points. Why are you parroting them here?
Really? Which specific words and deeds Mr. Limbaugh?
Cheney is a weasle, but isn't Mr. Scheer mistaken when he describes President Obama as "a resolutely anti-torture president"?
You are correct, he has chosen that fiction, as a convenient way, to frame his argument, while staying safely inside, the the bigger 9/11 official story frame.
"Why are folks pussy-footing all over this site?"
_______________
Well, see... that is,... ah...
I really couldn't say.
So how exactly did Bin Laden orchestrate the attacks? I didn't realize that the evidence has been presented. I'm not aware, of the fruits of 10 years, of investigations into the support networks, financiers, etc etc etc. KSM was water boarded over 180 times for his "confessions", but where is the rest of the there, there?
Whatever you do though, and Sheer is right in there with the rest of the impotent Fourth Estate on this, DONT EVER, EVER, QUESTION THE EVENTS OF 9/11. That is the new American creed, that everything else flows from. Horrible acts, all done in the name of that "event", but to question anything is just so September 10th, right?
Why is it that all contributors to CD take this approach? Seems like this is the one place where you could say flat out that 9-11 was a Cheney/CIA operation. Curious.
just think-being that this cheney thing exists, and was in such positions of "power" -think of all the governmental underlings this douche bags political bent has had an impact on.
Until the people of the world awaken to the realization that allowing psychopaths to hold leadership positions ....in governments, businesses, militaries.... will only allow the psychopaths to enhance their own status - -- - at the expense of everyone else in the world, to the detriment of world stability, health, and survival.
Most of those positions are currently held by psychopaths who may appear to be sane individuals but whose lack of empathic conscience and excess narcissism pose serious threat.
Testing can screen for psychopaths.
Once identified, they ought simply be denied ever to hold such leadership positions.
We'll all be safer in the long run.
And while I do not believe in the death penalty, I believe that imprisoning Cheney for the rest of his life is, though incommensurate for his egregious war crimes, our only viable option.
I'd suggest Guantanamo, for him and all his NeoCon cronies since Abu Gharib has been demolished, the obvious first choice.
Apparently, you don't get it.
Today's wars are about control of oil, ergo money.
"a necessary response to the threat of Osama bin Laden"
There are physical villains and there are psychological villains. The physical villain does some obvious physical harm, like bin Laden did. The psychological villain confuses, deludes and enslaves people, like Darth Viper (the former Merkan VP) did, and still does. You can see how the psychological villain perpetrates his crime in his quote above. Notice how he focuses attention on the external threat, the physical villain, in order to distract his victims from the psychological crime he perpetrates upon them. While Merkans dwell in fear of the external threat, they are enslaved by the psychological villain who is illuminated under the glittering spotlight of their domestic media. They are under his spell, and they do the villain's bidding without questions. Of course not all Merkans do his bidding. Some merely tolerate his crimes while retaining their "property rights" in Merka.
Even if Osama Bin Laden was completely and solely responsible for the deaths on 9-11 (which, I believe, is utterly and ridiculously untrue) his "crimes" would fade into insignificance compared to the hundreds and hundreds of thousands who died at the order of Dick Cheney. In truth, this monster could untimately be responsible for the first acts of Ecocide by his use of Depleted Uranium weapons in the first and second Gulf Wars as well as in Afghanistan. Cheney is far worse than a "psychological villian" in your comparison. However, it is also misguided to view him as the embodiment of Evil. His is a very individual and uniquely American blend of depravity and self righteousness.
What vile beslubbering canker-blossomed jackanape is it that doth taunt and vex us so?
May a scourge and a pox and a pestilence smite the loathsome flap-mouthed smirk from his rump-fed countenance and a dank dungeon await this ill-nurtured maggot-pie.