« Obama? TOTALLY SAME AS BUSH! | Overreach THIS!'s Blog | David Broder again urges: No accountability! »

Cheeney defiant: Emerging as 2012 candidate? Or as, uh, jailbird?


The radio host's drowning torture video shows us graphically what we really got ourselves into.  Holy smokes!

 

And just one day after Cheeney's swaggering moment defending, dismissing, and giving courage to some Republicans while momentarily puffing himself up!  Is he finally going to get his old boss's job?  At approximately the same time as the drowning torture was being broadcast in Chicago, Cheeney's daughter was on morning TV lecturing Lawrence O'Donnell that it was no biggie and how her glowering Dad was a right peach.   That radio stunt ("Absolutely torture!") was bad timing for the resurgent Republican juggernaut all around; talk about point-counterpoint!

 

Janis Karpinski says don't listen to the malevolent curmudgeon - Abu Ghraib was no series of stray incidents but linked right to the Cheney torture memos.  That can probably be proven easily, by looking at who trained the Abu Ghraib soldiers and where did the trainers get their perspective (Karpinski says they were right there in the camp with her, BTW).  Cheeney's heroes, the CIA contractors who inflicted his "good" drowning torture will do a lot of finger-pointing if they are put in legal jeopardy, Karpinski adds.  No wonder he wants them protected!

 

By poking a sharp stick in the Dems' eyes, is Cheeney alienating people who'd normally be reluctant see a Veep investigated/prosecuted?  Could this start unraveling for him?   It sure was a cocky move demoting Karpinski, with those damning DoD memos floating around in addition to the disgraced DoJ handiwork.  Bush had to personally approve the demotion, and he obviously wouldn't have without Cheeney's okay.  They must have been feeling lucky.


3 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

If Cheney could round up a few wacked out generals he'd be doing "7 Days in May". The guy is power crazed.

user-pic

I literally thought (this was years ago) that they would do this rather than put the country at risk by holding 2008 elections that could be influenced by people not sympathetic to the all-important party line.

I thus questioned whether they would peaceably tranfer power -- why take a chance on something like that. Glad I have been wrong to date.

user-pic

No, what he's doing is reminding people that when Obama is finally starting to take responsibility for national security on his own watch, he's sticking with the "lawless" Bush policies.

In sharp contrast to every single one of his speeches.

Leave a comment

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address