 “A smile is just a frown turned upside down and skewed a bit.” |
A new national poll suggests that favorable opinions of the former vice president are on the rise….
But the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Thursday morning, indicates that a majority of Americans still have an unfavorable opinion of Cheney.
Fifty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say they have an unfavorable opinion of the former vice president. Thirty-seven percent say they have a favorable opinion of Cheney, up 8 percentage points from January when he left office….
“Former President George W. Bush’s favorable rating rose 6 points in that same time period”….
I only post this because the reporters won’t be able to figure out why the figures are up: People are starting to miss the cartoons:
Thanks, K B
Oh my god you guys. I just figured it out. Alfred1 = the real-life Eric Cartman. Think about it…
Shocking. I had figured that the only people who like Cheney would be the same ones who also hate the French (because they are cultured, flamboyant, precise, arrogant, and uppity). The knockout blow would be to posit that Cheney is a French name! You have the obvious Chêne (oak tree) but also the decorum Chéneau (gutter) and Chenet (andiron).
Couldn’t we convince them that Cheney is French and drive his popularity levels down into the low single digits? Please, pretty please?
Waterboarding is a crime, against the law. Cheney authorized this torture. I see no other solution but to try him for war crimes, it is so simple to see.
History will show how incompetent the Bush Administration was and anyone who supported it has been taken for a long slippery ride.
Or they are delusional….oh Alfred, I see your delusional butt here again. A belief in non existent beings and a belief in the worst Administration in US history. Are your Scientology dues paid up?
#38 bobsyeruncle
I think he’s more like Butters.
Butters “We’re not Christian, we just pretended to be.”
Cartman “Remind me to cut your balls off when we get back.”
It looks like most of the progressives on this board are out enjoying the Memorial Day weekend while you right wing nut reactionaries are here having a circle jerk. Now if you will excuse me I have a camp out/party to attend. Later losers.
>> Alfred1 said,
>> Obama is doctrinaire, he will not change his actions when facts demand it, because his agenda drives his action, not any real effort to do what works.
The Conservative capacity for projection never ceases to astound me.
BUSH was doctrinaire. Conservatives, in general, are proudly doctrinaire. This trait led them into one problem after the next when they were in power.
Obama, in contrast, is highly pragmatic — so much so that the progressive Democrats are P.O.d at him.
(You’d wouldn’t be ignorant of this, if there was a fairness doctrine.)
But YOU think Obama is doctrinaire! Astounding.
>> right
>> Waterboarding is a crime, against the law. Cheney authorized this torture. I see no other solution but to try him for war crimes, it is so simple to see.
According to Cheney torture is a “policy issue” and “opinion.”
And the conservatives accuse the LIBERALS of being moral relativists!
BTW, I’m going to try pleading conservative “honest disagreement” if I ever cause a car wreck.
Ouch!
http://usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090521.htm
# 45 Greg Allen said, “BTW, I’m going to try pleading conservative “honest disagreement” if I ever cause a car wreck.”
And, if I ever try to a car by running it over with a steamroller I’ll plead, liberal logic…
#46 So what would you with these guys? Just leave them there indefinitely in the world’s most expensive prison? The US commanders in the middle east want it closed for obvious reasons. What is the alternative?
The vice-president doesn’t have the authority to authorize anything like that, so get your facts straight.
>So, if there is another successful terrorist attack, it will be Obama’s fault. Bush kept us safe, Obama did not.
Yes, and fear of this has sent Obama to following Cheney’s orders. Now Guantanamo is in limbo, renditions and black sites continue, military tribunals go forward, and predator strikes in Pakistan.
# 48 qb said, “#46 So what would you with these guys? Just leave them there indefinitely in the world’s most expensive prison?”
Nope. 3 categories:
1) Attacked US troops while being opposing soldiers of a recognized army. (or citizen of country they were fighting in) = Return them.
2) Illegal combatant = Execute.
3) Unknown = Fair trial to place them in above categories or innocent of anything.
#51 – Night of the long knives coming to a White House near you?
http://boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/05/21/muellers_remarks_fuel_guantanamo_debate/
#50 Uh huh.
#1 Pretty much already done
#2 You might want to check with William Gates, US Commanders, and your allies in the Middle East on that
#3 Terrific. Trials for innocent detainees at the hands of the US military. See # 2
One thing you Alfred are right on, this is the first major setback for Obama. If I was him, I would toss the problem straight back into the Senate’s lap for them to figure out.
And one other little detail you might want to think about. The legal position which says that some of the detainees would qualify as “illegal combatants” would most likely apply to US and British forces in Iraq (not Afghanistan). That would be a sticky problem for ex-US troops travelling abroad.
#54
Not true. Illegal combatants are more that just those not wearing a uniform. They are people that are not part of any military nor represented by any government that are conducting military operations. If a person in the American military were captured, even if not wearing their uniform, they would still be subject to the Geneva convention under normal circumstances. However, to whom would the US conduct negotiations? The whole problem is that we are not fighting a nation-state and thus, there is no government with which to swap prisoners or ensure proper treatment.
#55 You’ve hit the problem. I don’t think they are illegal combatants, but certain states would (e.g. Saudia Arabia). What a pointless and distracting mess for the US.
Let’s widen it a bit, how about US military contractors like Blackwater? Questions would arise and you’d have to revisit the legality of the war yet again. Better to avoid it altogether and not get distracted.
It’s better just to quietly have this mess fade away, get out of Iraq, clean up Afghanistan and Pakistan as best you can (maybe grab the nuclear weapons), and then isolate the Arab world. It would be a 1/2 century cold war but the alternatives are worse. The Arab states and wider Muslim world have to sort themselves out, no one else can do it for them.
The kool aid drinkers do this to every fact that contradicts their lunacy…show them a glass half full, they will point out its half empty and from that conclude no liquid is available…
well… Occam’s Razor tells us that God did it so who are we to disagree…
# 54 qb said, “And one other little detail you might want to think about. The legal position which says that some of the detainees would qualify as “illegal combatants” would most likely apply to US and British forces in Iraq (not Afghanistan). ”
Wrong. You should learn the relevant laws/treaties.
# 56 qb said, “#55 You’ve hit the problem. I don’t think they are illegal combatants, but certain states would (e.g. Saudia Arabia).”
If someone isn’t part of a military whose gov’t is conducting a war, nor a citizen defending (on their own soil) against an invasion, they are unlawful combatants and are subject to execution. That means all the foreign fighters in Iraq & Afghanistan can be executed by the allied military as they are encountered.
If someone isn’t part of a military whose gov’t is conducting a war, nor a citizen defending (on their own soil) against an invasion, they are unlawful combatants and are subject to execution. That means all the foreign fighters in Iraq & Afghanistan can be executed by the allied military as they are encountered.
I guess all the USA soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal combatants then since we didn’t legally declare war on either nation…
# 60 jccalhoun said, “I guess all the USA soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal combatants then since we didn’t legally declare war on either nation…”
Wrong. Try again.
You can fool all of the people all of the time if you have a big enough advertising budget.
# 16 Patrick said,Small time evil.
Kennedy’s & Johnson’s lies resulted in > 50k US deaths.
Right on target and how quickly people forget.
# 35 Greg Allen said, on May 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 am Obama is trying to fix Bush’s multiple disasters.
Obama does NOT fix anything he just acts as a pander to buy votes. That, as you know, is how he got elected.
# 44 Greg Allen said, on May 23rd, 2009 at 10:04 am >> (You’d wouldn’t be ignorant of this, if there was a fairness doctrine.)
Are you really so incredibly stupid as to believe in the good of the so called fairness doctrine.
You would really advocate using law or regulation to force people to listen to Democrat propaganda because they will not listen to it by free choice?
Didn’t the Chapter 11 of Air America Radio teach you anything?
It’s not about choice it’s about FREE choice not having some Democrat scold jam something down your throat.
#56
American contractors like Blackwater are sponsored by the US government and therefore the US government would represent them should they be captured and they would be covered under the Geneva Conventions.
We’ll see if it will be possible to isolate the Arab world without a presence in Iraq. I don’t think it will be. I think that Iraq is an ideal lightening rod for terrorists and strategically placed to thwart any sort of stupidity from Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Pakistan.
#59
Correct.
#60
A: We did declare war. Read up on the AUMFs.
B: The men fighting are sponsored by or are members of the US military and thus do not qualify as enemy combatants. If the French suddenly decided to attack US troops in Iraq, they also would not be illegal enemy combatants but rather soldiers of an opponent and therefore covered under the Geneva Convention. The French government would act on their behalf were they to be captured. You are a “lawful” combatant (i.e. a solider) if you are a member of an organized military whose government ordered you to a combat zone.
Think about all the stories you grew up with
How did the bad guys behave?(like Dick) What were the villains like?(Dick) Even after they are beaten and you think the fight is finally ending they some how reach up from the ruins of the battle for one last attempt usually shooting/stabbing some one in the back or trying to press the button to set off the(insert destructive device of your choice here) We had an election and the Cheney doctrines were soundly defeated as a matter of fact Cheney and his side kick Bush did more to lose the election for McCain and the Republicans then anything else. Now he is working on hurting the GOP chances in 2010. If he would just shut up the left would split and the far left would go after Obama for being a lightweight on the Cheney crimes. As it is they can still go after Cheney himself keeping the left together. Cheney you and you ideology lost BIG, now take your waterboard and go home.
Anyone into History??
Look up the families and soforth in politics..BACK to about Lincolns day, until TODAY.. look up their relations to others..
A: We did declare war. Read up on the AUMFs.
Read your constitution. The USA hasn’t issued a declaration of war since 1941.
If people in this thread are being sticklers for definitions when defining “torture” and “enemy combatant” then let’s be sticklers for “war” as well…