Manly Man

Cheney only had daughters with Lynne. His daughter’s are pretty macho as a result. Yecch.

As far as Cheney is concerned he only has 1 daughter now. Remember he doesn’t really talk to Mary much any more because she is gay and is in a relationship is out of the closet. He doesn’t approve of that and so therefore she is probably not allowed to be mentioned. LOL

Teh Dick™ is another gutless wussyboy. Cowering, easily frightened milquetoast. Never served his country in the armed services in spite of others being drafted to serve. This Dickless wonder is beneath contempt.

I do have to point out the chauvinistic premise underlying making fun of Dick Cheney for enlisting his daughter to defend his legacy.It’s a seemingly insurmountable task (to us in this corner) but what’s dishonorable and unworthy about sending a woman for the job?I’ve been reading the blog for awhile, don’t think I’ve posted yet – I know it’s supposed to be humorous and all . . . but.But bob you’ve underscored the ridiculousness of sending his daughter “his daughter!” to be part of the effort. Even criminals are looking for the best talent, regardless of gender.Sure, everything Cheney does is dishonorable at this point, but involving articulate advocates, who happen to be women, does not add to the pile. By repeating daughter, it implied to me that if Cheney had a son to offer this would be the less-dishonorable choice. And that implies that women need to stay indoors all day and just make babies etc.(please don’t interpret any of this as a defense of dick cheney)

swamptroll:Liz is very competent and articulate…and as evil as the old man. It’s mama Lynne who’s the full-on ideologue and Liz is her clone. Bob wasn’t playing up the ‘chick’ thing, it’s more of a ‘sick’ thing.Liz’s college thesis stands as the roadmap for some of Dick’s more heinous usurpation of policy in time of war. She’s no lady, she’s a Dick.

Swamptroll – You read way too far into that. The point is he is using one his own children to defend himself. Doesnt matter what gender she is.

I must say, based on the italics and exclamation point over “daughters!” that it should be noted that the thing her isn’t that she’s a girl, but that this man is making his CHILD lie. It’d be great if you could modify the post or at least add a line making this look a little less sexist. As is, it implies that he shouldn’t be making a sweet, delicate lady do this sort of thing.

Dick Cheney is the most cowardly villain of our time.

There you go Bob. I fixed it for you.

Well, I’m working this weekend. I can understand the vindicate Daddy thing. I expect that she did this on her own free will. Too bad that it will besmirch her reputation, but it is her choice.Relax a bit. These terrible problems will be here when you get back. I promise.

I don’t get why it’s any worse for a daughter to be doing his dirty work than for a son – if that was what was intended.

But yeah, he’s your classic chicken(shit)-hawk. Col Wilkerson’s description of how scared he was after 9/11 is classic.

Yes, she’s even more annoying than the old man. She also has her daddy’s snear. A well trained seal who can spout lies at an incredible speed, nobody except maybe Morning Joe seems to like her much. All I can imagine is that they must have all grown up in families where cruelty and sadistic behaviour was the norm. Sick people.

They both believe very seriously in the idea of a unitary executive. She even wrote a paper on it in college. He hasn’t enlisted her to go out and advocate for him, she’s pretty much an acolyte, a firm believer in the “if the President commands it in a time of war, it is legal”. She does not believe the Framers wanted or envisioned three co-equal branches, but instead a powerful executive empowered by the Constitution to act quickly and decisively when necessary.She wants to do this. She believes in it.Again I want her asked one simple question: “How is it that you are so certain that these techniques have prevented attacks and saved lives? ” I want to know what she knows, when she knew it, and who gave her the security clearance (probably far above her State Department pay grade) to know it.

wait, an internet response board where they don’t chew you up and spit you out?thanks for the good responses guys

Bob, they don’t call the man DICK, for nothing. Forget about him and go enjoy your weekend!

Annette I think his relationship with Mary Cheney is pretty solid. He might not favor same-sex marriage or for gays & lesbians to have federal protections, but he’s pretty close to Mary. He just doesn’t talk about it.

swamptroll: I hear you, but I think we have to let this one slide. Men are kinda funny about their daughters, and Bob has a daughter. He’s feeling this in a place I think only other men *get.* Also, I think he’s making a more ironic point – Dick Cheney (and Republicans in general) ran on being manly men, as opposed to the wussy John Kerry and the boytoy (turns out to be true!) John Edwards, and the uppity celeb Barack Obama. Meanwhile, here’s manly man Cheney, too scared to stand up for American values, encouraging the nation to be similarly terrified, and sending a woman out to do his dirty work. A woman who, by rights, ought to be someone under HIS protection, by manly man standards.That’s the sense in which I think Bob means to take Cheney to task, and whether Bob HIMSELF feels that way or not, the irony can’t be missed.QT

women are capable, bob knows this. to me it was more parental protection than protecting the weak. he wouldn’t let someone he loves take the punches in his fight, esp. his child. you should see what i do to protect my dog and she’s the baddest bitch on the block. (she really is. it’s embarrassing) however we can’t ignore that women are still treated unfairly by a large precentage of men and for bob to want to protect his daughter from that is admirable. a lot of women don’t have people like that in their life.

swamptroll -We only chew people up and spit them out for repeating debunked talking points and other known misinformation, distortions, and out-right lies.You may have opposing views and opinions, just don’t use bogus data to support them.You did nothing wrong, you stated your opinion. I’m glad to see you post here.

QT -Thank you. You very eloquently described exactly how I took Bob’s post. I have two daughters the oldest of which is only slightly younger than Liz. I would be ashamed to show my face if my daughters were out in public protecting me.

Cheney is a comic book villain (well, the Burgess Meridith Penguin actually)…the only problem is that there are no superheros in real life. But I would love to see Batman give him a smackdown.

Cowardly villain is much nicer language than I use for him. You have admirable restraint.

The big picture on torture, Guantanamo, Cheney, Pelosi….In the last few weeks, I have posted some two dozen items on the tangled mess of issues related to Guantanamo, waterboarding, etc. So I decided to sweep the whole thing into one pile, and see if the big picture makes any sense.Here are the facts that we have in fact been able to establish.Waterboarding is illegal, it causes more problems than it solves, it actually makes the intelligence-gathering effort harder rather than easier, and is a dumbass idea.Cheney is a bottomless fountain of lies, fallacies, and fearmonger tactics; in particular, the notion that the Bush crime family made us more safe and Obama makes us less safe is demonstrable nonsense, and the notion that closing Guantanamo puts us in danger is also poppycock. And virtually all his bullcrap can be shot down using Republican sources.The GOP jihad against Pelosi is also loaded with proveable lies and fallacies.Now, the details.TORTUREWaterboarding is torture, and illegal. For that we rely on Title 18 of the U.S. Code, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Convention, and some other rules you don’t get to break. A rightwing radio host who had insisted that waterboarding isn’t torture agreed to be waterboarded – and changed his mind in exactly six seconds. McCain also refuted Cheney’s screeching on the waterboarding issue. Bob Barr, the arch-conservative who led the effort to impeach Clinton, says torture is illegal. Even Reagan jailed cops who waterboarded prisoners.The danger of using torture and other such nonsense in a system with virtually no adult supervision is made vivid by the fact that a hundred of our detainees have already died in custody, and a third of them are already confirmed or suspected homicides; meanwhile one interrogator who hated the notion of torturing people committed suicide; details of the incident were covered up by the Pentagon. Meanwhile the Senate Armed Services Committee shot down Cheney’s claim that the abuse at Abu Ghuraib was the work of rogue guards not sanctioned by any higher authority.**UPDATE** — Here is a professional interrogator, neatly destroying theGOP arguments about torture. He makes clear the danger of sending untrained interrogators to torture people with no actual rules of engagement; one of the interrogators killed herself rather than torture prisoners. He notes that torture can actually interfere with effective interrogation techniques — once you start using both methods, it’s impossible to separate the good intelligence from the bad, which compromises all the intel, good and bad.http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/23/734355/-Torture:-This-shouldnt-need-to-be-saidCHENEYCheney has been spouting rather a lot of lies and logical fallacies, in addition to the big ones on waterboarding, Guantanamo etc. Bush’s own Pentagon people shot down Cheney’s claim that Saddam was linked to Al-Qa’ida and other terrorists; the one big-name terrorist who managed to get to Baghdad…was killed by Saddam. Cheney claimed that the Bush gang moved decisively against al-Qa’ida and the Taleban, ignoring the fact that the leaders of both groups are thriving because the Bush administration was too obsessive about Iraq. Cheney implied that Obama was at fault for blocking the release of key documents…It was actually an executive order by Bush. A number of Republicans have said they want Cheney to shut up.WE ARE SAFER!Cheney falsely claimed that the Director of National Intelligence backed him up in claiming that torture yielded valuable intelligence we wouldn’t have gotten otherwise. A CIA investigation showed no evidence that the torture yielded anything valuable. Bush’s FBI Director also rejected the idea that we got valuable intelligence. The claim that torture yielded information which prevented an attack in LA – also a lie, already debunked. Torture actually hurts the intelligence effort: two detainees admitted that they gave inaccurate intelligence just to avoid being tortured – the false intelligence pertained to the mythical Iraq-terror link which Bush and Cheney wanted so badly to establish.Also, Cheney stressed the importance of getting good intelligence while omitting the fact the Bush gang regularly ignored or fudged the intelligence they did get.Stopping the torture program doesn’t make us less safe. If it did, the Bush gang wouldn’t have stopped it five years ago, would they? Their own actions belie their words. Likewise Bush’s Homeland Security Secretary, Tom Ridge, refuted Cheney’s claim that Obama made us less safe, and Bush’s Director of National Intelligence shot down Cheney’s claim that releasing torture-related memos made us less safe. Bush’s generals refuted the notion that stopping the torture, or even talking about the torture issue, means we’re not supporting our troops – the generals said the torture itself is fostering terrorism and endangering our troops. And lying about it and concealing it isn’t helping our tattered credibility either.GUANTANAMOThe Guantanamo detainees are not, as Cheney claims, the worst of the worst. The Bush gang stupidly offered a cash reward in the streets of Afghanistan for terrorists, no proof needed, so any local Afghan with a gun could run out and grab anybody even remotely Arab-looking, kidnap him, and collect the money. An overwhelming majority of the guys we grabbed are innocent of anything, and even the CIA admitted it way back in 2002. The New York Times reported that the released detainees were rejoining the jihad, but it was an invalid report and they had to backtrack.If there were evidence against these guys, Bush would have taken them to court. Instead Bush was caught hiding evidence that proved the innocence of some detainees. A court spanked the Bush gang for that – it’s illegal. Privately, the Bush administration admitted to the Germans that some of the detainees were innocent – but resisted saying the same thing to the American people.The claim that Obama is endangering us by closing Guantanamo is ridiculous. Even assuming these guys are real terrorists, which in most cases they’re not – you know how many people we have in American prisons who are genuinely dangerous? Proven to be dangerous with actual evidence?Cheney has selective amnesia on this issue. He slammed Obama for the effort to ship detainees to other countries…a process begun by Bush and Cheney. Bush and Robert Gates, both Republicans, refuted Cheney on Guantanamo; Bush, Rice and Gates were working to shut down Guantanamo before Obama ever got to the White House.[**UPDATE** from AFP: Gates said in an interview that opponents of Obama's decision to close the "war on terror" prison at Guantanamo were engaging in "fear-mongering," a reference to Cheney's stance on the issue. ]PELOSITwo things which have been established firmly, are that the CIA has lied repeatedly to Congress, and that Pelosi did not know about the waterboarding as early as the Republicans claim. Kerry, Obey, Graham, Rockefeller, Specter, Fox News, House Republican leader Boehner, leading Republican Hoekstra pointed out the CIA’s lies to Congress. In fact the CIA is being investigated now, for lying to Congress. It has been established that the CIA lied about the briefings on the interrogations, and four of the above Congress members already have specifically refuted the claim that Pelosi was briefed about the waterboarding. Both the current CIA boss and Bush’s former CIA boss Porter Goss were pressed to back up the GOP accusations against Pelosi; even Goss, a rabid arch-conservative who hates everything Pelosi stands for and would love to see her destroyed, backpedaled rather than accuse her on this point. One GOP investigator not only admitted that Pelosi didn’t know about the torture, but also faulted her for not asking more questions – can’t have it both ways, guys! A logical fallacy.Another logical fallacy by the GOP: Bush’s crimes are not extenuated by anybody he claims he told about it. Telling somebody you’re committing a crime doesn’t make it legal: it makes it a criminal conspiracy.Another fallacy: that Pelosi should have stopped the torture. Setting aside the fact that she didn’t know it was going on, she wasn’t even Speaker when all this happened – in fact she was in the minority party, during a time in which the minority party was barely allowed to eat in the cafeteria and use the toilets in the House chamber, let alone demand an investigation or legislation. Furthermore the Bush gang made clear time after time that they intended to ignore any Congressional input with respect to any issue which, in their view, infringed upon the national security prerogatives of the executive.Another fallacy: how can the Republicans simultaneously insist that there is no scandal, and that Pelosi is implicated in…the non-existent scandal? “Pelosi should have stopped us even though we did nothing wrong!”?Newt screeched a stream of insults at Pelosi and demanded she resign. Other Republicans demanded she apologize, or be impeached, etc etc. A new GOP ad shows Pelosi being shot. Classy bunch.POLITICSSo here’s the part I don’t understand yet.The facts are easy to establish on these issues: the GOP knows that if they push this, it will turn into a year-long probe into Bush’s crimes and follies, a total disaster for the GOP, and in the meantime they can’t gain any traction on the issues they could actually win on, like spending. An even bigger hazard: a number of former Bush administration officials have admitted that the aim of the torture was to force detainees to falsely accuse Saddam of links to terrorism in time for the 2002 elections – a full exploration of that issue could actually kill the party dead, dead, dead. So why are they doing this?Perhaps they know their other issues are weak, as evinced by the way the attack on Obama’s spending devolved into the pathetic tea-party fiasco which had no effect whatsoever on the popularity of Obama or his policies.Perhaps they’re worried about the coming health care battle, and want to use a side issue like this to soften him up first.Perhaps the Pelosi thing is driven by the fact that this bunch of reactionary dead white males like beating up on girls, particularly Democrats: not long ago a Bush administration official admitted that they handled Katrina the way they did because their main aim was to make Kathleen Blanco look bad and beat her up a little. That, not managing the crisis response, was their main focus. But directing their fire at Pelosi now is silly: she and Obama are the two Democrats who are completely secure in their positions (contrary to the precarious position of Reid), and attacking Pelosi gets them nothing – not even a chance to alter the balance in the power in the House**UPDATE** — The fact that the GOP is targeting Pelosi because of her gender, was driven home forcefully when they ran the ad allegedly attacking her leadership skills — and portraying her as James Bond babe Pussy Galore. And then shooting her.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22894.htmlPerhaps they just want to fire up the GOP base, to show that at least the Gestapo wing of the party, with all their sledgehammer political tactics, is still alive and kicking. The only things which can be relied upon to spin up the base are fear and hate, so going that route may just be force of habit for the gauleiters of today’s GOP. But that also alienates the all-important moderates and independents, two groups which the Republicans have inexplicably showed no interest in wooing this spring.Perhaps they interpreted Obama’s expressed intent to avoid a partisan fight on these issues as a sign of weakness: “If he says he won’t fight on this, let’s just keep punching him in the teeth until he changes his mind. Bloody him up a little.” That strategy would be pretty ludicrous because if the repeated Republican harassment impelled Obama to pursue these issues he could destroy the Republicans, but as long as he continues the arm’s-length stance, they can keep taking pokes at him, and at Pelosi.Perhaps they have no coherent party strategy at all, reflective of the continuing civil war within the GOP – some Republicans want Cheney to fight on, others want him to shut up, some want an investigation into all this, others dread it. Steele wants a probe into all these issues, but he’s an idiot: Boehner was out there insisting that Pelosi apologize, but when he was asked whether he wanted an investigation, he backpedaled. Some Republicans threatened Eric Holder (perhaps they think blacks are weak like women…?); they told him that if there is an investigation, they will fight tooth and nail to smear any Democrat they can, the way they’re doing to Pelosi. How they would make such nonsense work is debateable: perhaps they would go to the old standby – blame Clinton for everything.So the Republicans are gambling on a laughably fallacious campaign to try to exploit an issue which could very easily blow back and kill their party, and no one can figure out why. As Herman Wouk would say, giggling idiots juggling dynamite.It is a puzzlement.Actually, we do know one reason why Cheney went insane and screeched a bunch of desperate nonsense in that speech, even though a lot of Republicans want him to shut up and go away. As his daughter admitted to Fox, Cheney did it because he fears prosecutions are coming.http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/22/cheney-prosecution-fear/More cool stuff at http://hellodollyllama.blogspot.com/

For Cripe’s sake, she’s a grown woman. Now her dad has to ALLOW her to speak her mind on TV? I’ll remember this post next time we’re making fun of Muslims for being patriarchal.

yeah snarla, because bob wanting to protect his daughter out of love is totally the same thing as some muslim men treating women like useless whores.

Thanks, gypsy. Bob wanting to protect his daughter has what-all to do with anything?Dick Cheney should be protecting forty-two-year-old Liz, is that it? He should have put his foot down and NOT ALLOWED her to go on TV? Because Bob wants to protect his daughter out of love? There is some sort of connection there in your mind?Also, patriarchal does not equal treating women like useless whores.

She’s just continuing on with her very raison d’etre. She was conceived to help gain daddio yet another deferment from serving in the Viet Nam War, and she’s still trying to help keep him out of hot water to this day.

Snarla: your protest of patriarchal thinking almost oerfectly writes Bob’s post.QT

*perfectly writes Bob’s post.QT

Shades of Richard Nixon sending Trisha around the country to do his lying for him at the height of Watergate. Nixon didn’t even tell his daughter the truth. But there is no excuse for what Ms Cheney is doing. You gotta love these Repugnants family values.