Cheney OK after Afghan suicide bombing

[banyon]

Cheney OK after Afghan suicide bombing

http://snsimages.tribune.com/media/thumbnails/photo/2005-10/14160112.jpg

By Mark Silva
Tribune correspondent
Published February 27, 2007, 8:00 AM CST


KABUL, Afghanistan – After getting a taste of the terrorism that threatens the Afghan government, Vice President Dick Cheney, attempting to give assurances that the United States will stand by Afghanistan, insisted that political leaders in the U.S. calling for a withdrawal of military forces from Iraq will leave countries in this part of the world vulnerable to dangerous "consequences.''

The vice president—who became the most senior member of the Bush administration to spend the night in a war zone after poor weather delayed his trip into Kabul—also came up against some of the violence that threatens the young government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. At least 23 people died and many more were wounded when a suicide bomber attacked the main gate of Bagram Air Force Base on the morning that Cheney awoke at the vast air base nestled in the mountains.


At the time of the attack, for which the Taliban claimed credit, the vice president was secure and well inside the base, far from the bombing that sent a plume of smoke rising beyond the flight line where his military cargo jet was parked preparing for takeoff for Kabul. As the base called a Code Red, Cheney was moved "for a brief moment'' from the room where he was staying, he said, but was returned to his room after the situation "settled down.''

The broader meaning of the attack, Cheney said hours later, is that insurgents are pressing for ways to challenge the authority of the Karzai government. Talk of withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq only emboldens terrorists operating here and in Pakistan, where he had traveled the day before, he continued.

"I think they clearly try to find ways to question the authority of the central government,'' Cheney said during a brief interview in a luxury-cabin mounted inside the cargo bay of the C-17 military transport, dubbed "The Spirit of Strom Thurmond," that had carried him in to Pakistan and Afghanistan and out again.

"Striking at the Bagram base with a suicide bomber, I suppose, is one way to do that,'' Cheney said. "It shouldn't affect our behavior.''

Cheney said he heard "a loud boom'' sitting in his room deep inside the sprawling base. The Secret Service moved him to a nearby bomb shelter, he said, but returned him to his room when "the situation settled down.'' He already had been preparing to leave Bagram for Kabul that morning, but the pace of agents moving people to the vice president's military transport picked up after the attack. The plane took off at 12:01 p.m. local time, landing in Kabul 18 minutes later.

Terrorists in the region are intent on testing the resolve of the U.S. in Iraq, the Bush administration maintains. And "the continuing threat that exists in this part of the world'' is part of the reason that President Bush dispatched the vice president to Pakistan on Monday and Afghanistan on Tuesday, according to a senior administration official interviewed near the end of a trip that was supposed to be completed in one day but turned into a two-day affair because of weather in Afghanistan.

This official also suggested that news reports indicating that Cheney had been dispatched to "beat up'' on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf for the persisting terrorism that is based and planned inside Pakistan is "not so.'' The idea that Cheney would "go in and threaten someone is not valid.''

The Afghan president was reportedly "upbeat'' in his hourlong meeting with Cheney at the fortified presidential palace in Kabul, which the vice president reached in an armored motorcade that weaved through the cement-and-sandbag barriers erected in slalom fashion leading toward the palace.

Karzai told Cheney of a meeting that he had held with tribal leaders in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan where terrorists seek haven, according to this official, who quoted Karzai as saying over lunch with Cheney: "The only question they wanted to ask me was, 'Is the United States with you?'''

On a weeklong trip around the world, Cheney has insisted that political leaders in the U.S. calling for withdrawal of forces from Iraq are playing into Al Qaeda's strategy to weaken the U.S. will to fight. "That would have devastating consequences,'' the administration official said at the close of the vice president's trip.

"The Al Qaeda strategy is based on the notion that they can break the will of the American people,'' the official said. The Afghan government is encouraged by additional money and troops that the Bush administration is committing, he said. "If they see weakness on the part of the U.S.,'' he said, "they worry about our commitment.''

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070227cheney-silva,1,3705959.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[Ultra Peanut]

Don't pull the thang up
Unless you plan to bang
Bombs over Bagram

[patteeu]

Move over Rich Scanlon. Step aside Chuck Norris. Dick Cheney's in the house.

[noa]

Cheney's a survivah

[Logical]

Of all the bad luck.

[Bowser]

Are we sure that Cheney just didn't shotgun blast a propane tank by mistake?

[Direckshun]

I'm sure he'll come back to the White House and tell Russert on MTP that securing Afghanistan has been a resolute success.

[Cochise]

Did the genious really think he was going to waltz in the front gate of an American airbase and walk up to the V.P.?

[penchief]

Move over Rich Scanlon. Step aside Chuck Norris. Dick Cheney's in the house.

Cheney was nowhere near the explosion. However, if he had been I'm sure that Papa Chickenhawk would have been cowering behind the troops.

[Chief Henry]

Cheney was nowhere near the explosion. However, if he had been I'm sure that Papa Chickenhawk would have been cowering behind the troops.


First class post there PC.

[CrazyCoffey]

Those damn terrorists.



I hear the white house has sent the Taiban an invitation to go on some hunting trip????

[penchief]

First class post there PC.

Nobody ever said I was PC. While I would never be one to wish that the bomb had got him, I am one who will not hesitate to call someone a phony if I think so. And I don't think Dick Cheney is a genuine tough-guy. I think he's a classic bully.

[Baby Lee]

Of all the bad luck.
So yeah, I . . . umm, I'm gonna go ahead and give this remark the most generous interpretation I can.

Because I'm sure Vlad isn't a total asshole. . .

[patteeu]

Cheney was nowhere near the explosion. However, if he had been I'm sure that Papa Chickenhawk would have been cowering behind the troops.

He was closer than you were and we don't hear him whimpering for a pragmatic exit strategy. :p

[CrazyCoffey]

Nobody ever said I was PC. While I would never be one to wish that the bomb had got him, I am one who will not hesitate to call someone a phony if I think so. And I don't think Dick Cheney is a genuine tough-guy. I think he's a classic bully.



I took that as PC for Pen Chief not politically correct. Unless there was an inside story between you and chief henry......

[penchief]

I took that as PC for Pen Chief not politically correct. Unless there was an inside story between you and chief henry......

Not at all. I knew what he meant but it was too ripe for use as a double-meaning.

[Chief Henry]

Not at all. I knew what he meant but it was too ripe for use as a double-meaning.


It Could also mean Piss Cup. Which is about what your post was worth.

[Baby Lee]

It Could also mean Piss Cup. Which is about what your post was worth.
Don't diss penchief, he has the power to see the truth behind reality, if only we'd listen.
You'll see, when his special power forms the basis for a very special episode of Heroes.

[penchief]

It Could also mean Piss Cup. Which is about what your post was worth.

Do you have a piss cup?

[penchief]

Don't diss penchief, he has the power to see the truth behind reality, if only we'd listen.
You'll see, when his special power forms the basis for a very special episode of Heroes.

What is that supposed to mean? I don't get it.

Oh, I forgot. You're job is to make semi-humorous attempts to discredit the poster. Why does that seem to be your forte' lately?

Why do you choose to avoid the gist in favor of barbs?

But more importanly, I think it's my duty to inform you that your attempts have been pretty lame. You seem like a cool enough dude but you're missing the mark way too often, IMO. I understand that my posting style rubs you the wrong way but I don't believe that your off-topic remarks are always justified.

[dirk digler]

My grandma always told me if you can't say anything nice STFU.

[penchief]

My grandma always told me if you can't say anything nice STFU.

And I should have followed your grandmother's advice. But it just galls me when phonies like Cheney are put on a pedestal as advocates of the American way when peace and justice are the last things Cheneyburton is concerned about.

Yes, I'm bitter. But I'm trying to do better.

[dirk digler]

And I should have followed your grandmother's advice. But it just galls me when phonies like Cheney are put on a pedestal as advocates of the American way when peace and justice are the last things Cheneyburton is concerned about.

Yes, I'm bitter. But I'm trying to do better.

I am not bashing you penchief. I am just trying to restrain myself and I probably should have avoided this thread because of my disdain...I mean love of Cheney.

[Baby Lee]

What is that supposed to mean? I don't get it.

Oh, I forgot. You're job is to make semi-humorous attempts to discredit the poster. Why does that seem to be your forte' lately?

Why do you choose to avoid the gist in favor of barbs?

But more importanly, I think it's my duty to inform you that your attempts have been pretty lame. You seem like a cool enough dude but you're missing the mark way too often, IMO. I understand that my posting style rubs you the wrong way but I don't believe that your off-topic remarks are always justified.
Your whole MO is seeing the unseen unknowable secret motives and strategies underlying the way the world works.

Good things happen, Bushron Cheneyburton had a secret mechanism for profiting from it. Bad things happen, Bushron Cheneyburton planned it for some venal powergrabbing purpose.

It's about as dopey as G-Dub saying he saw into Putin's soul.

You're speculating, but you speculate with passion, which I guess transforms it into truth.

Your latest "xxx didn't happen, but I know Cheney would've been a chickenshit if it had" is just the latest iteration.

So I dubbed your gift the "ability to see the truth behind reality."

[penchief]

Your whole MO is seeing the unseen unknowable secret motives and strategies underlying the way the world works.

I've never claimed to have the answers but I do have my opinions. I think there is merit to what you say but I also think you are misinterpreting my intent. My astonishment at our collective inability to recoginize what is directly in front of our face does cause me to make statements that can be considered provocative. I'll grant you that. But you could meet me half way by at least trying to see what is blatantly obvious. Or, at least, try to address my statements instead of trying to color them.

Good things happen, Bushron Cheneyburton had a secret mechanism for profiting from it. Bad things happen, Bushron Cheneyburton planned it for some venal powergrabbing purpose.

It's about as dopey as G-Dub saying he saw into Putin's soul.

You're speculating, but you speculate with passion, which I guess transforms it into truth.

Now you're making a generalization.

I DO believe that this administration has one overriding ideology that dictates their approach to every issue. I DO believe that they try to rig every policy to benefit that ideology and those who share that ideology with them. I DO believe they are the biggest corportate whores in American history. I didn't like what Clinton did with NAFTA and I don't like where Reagan, Bush1, GW have taken corporate welfare, either.

I want the issues debated on their own merit instead of having a single interest or ideology framing the debate. It doesn't matter if the issue is the environment, education, health care, or war & peace, those who try to stack the deck in their favor should not be allowed to dictate the conditions under which we all live.

Those are my beliefs. And I think it is more than appropriate for you to challenge me on those beliefs. But I don't think it is appropriate to mock any poster for what they believe if you are not willing to address those beliefs directly with your own reason.

Your latest "xxx didn't happen, but I know Cheney would've been a chickenshit if it had" is just the latest iteration.

First, I didn't call Cheney a chickenshit. I called him a chickenhawk (which is factually accurate). Nobody tried harder to avoid Viet Nam than Dick Cheney. He made Bill Clinton look like Audie Murphy. So, as far as that goes I was just countering patteeu's seemingly unending effort to paint Dick Cheney as some noble American. IMO, Cheney is greed-monger. He hides behind government secrecy and shields himself behind America's patriotism while lobbing molotov cocktails at anyone who question's the administration's motives.

So I dubbed your gift the "ability to see the truth behind reality."

Why can't it just be my personal take on issues instead of how you want to paint it?

[Baby Lee]

Why can't it just be my personal take on issues instead of how you want to paint it?
The thing is, you are the most unprovable speculation based poster I know of.

Here's the difference;

A: Hillary Clinton wouldn't make a good president because she cannot escape her incessant drive to triangulate positions to the point where nothing is done for good or ill.

B. Hillary Clinton wouldn't make a good president because she harbors an innate hatred of men.

One can be discussed with specifics, one can never rise above competing speculation.

Like your take on the prescription drug program. I submit that, had anyone other than Bush [on your side of the aisle] engineered it, you'd be lauding their forthright purpose and touting it's approval rate amongst it's membership. But since it's a Bush initiative and you know so much about Bush's black soul, you offer up speculation regarding money grabs and duped populaces, culminating in our collective inability to see the truth behind reality.

I DO believe that this administration has one overriding ideology that dictates their approach to every issue. . . .I want the issues debated on their own merit instead of having a single interest or ideology framing the debate.
Right there. Those statements are inherently inapposite. You never address issues on their own merit. You always address them with your admitted assumption that the merits are a priori tainted by an ideology you believe them to possess.

[penchief]

Like your take on the prescription drug program. I submit that, had anyone other than Bush [on your side of the aisle] engineered it, you'd be lauding their forthright purpose and touting it's approval rate amongst it's membership. But since it's a Bush initiative and you know so much about Bush's black soul, you offer up speculation regarding money grabs and duped populaces, culminating in our collective inability to see the truth behind reality.

You're making projections. I think it was obvious that the drug plan was a corporate giveaway from the start. NOBODY was complaining about the one it replaced, NOBODY. It's initial implementation proved that it was not for the benefit of seniors. There is no added benefit to those who were benefitting before, the cost is immensely more expensive to the tax payer, and it is infinitely more complicated (so much so that AARP and other proxies were sent out into to the field to "educate" seniors). Where is all that extra expense going to? Who's the big winner? That's all I'm asking. Follow the money.

I don't think that my opinion about things in which I have "some" knowledge equates to what you are accusing me of. Are you capable of challenging my beliefs?

[Baby Lee]

Are you capable of challenging my beliefs?
Why would I even try? They're your beliefs. To challenge them would place me in the position of the haughty atheist trying to convince a Christian they're engaging in fantasy.

No, I'll stick to reminding everyone they're beliefs, not facts.

[penchief]

Right there. Those statements are inherently inapposite. You never address issues on their own merit. You always address them with your admitted assumption that the merits are a priori tainted by an ideology you believe them to possess.

I'm capable but these guys don't give me much of an opportunity.

List below their policies that haven't favored commerce and wealth over working families.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

List below their policies that haven't favored commerce and wealth over the environment.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

List below their policies that haven't favored commerce and wealth over the consumer.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

List below their tax cuts that haven't benefitted the wealthiest Americans or corporations over the middle class and working class.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

List below the times that they've opted for diplomacy over sabre-rattling, insults & threats, or fear-mongering.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

List below the reasons why Americans are not entitled to know if the invasion and occupation of Iraq was or was not a topic of the Energy Task Force Meetings.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.


Obviously, I could go on. But if you are willing to fill in the blanks I'll gladly counter with my reasons why I believe excatly what I believe.

But you first.

[penchief]

Why would I even try? They're your beliefs. To challenge them would place me in the position of the haughty atheist trying to convince a Christian they're engaging in fantasy.

No, I'll stick to reminding everyone they're beliefs, not facts.

I don't try to present my opinions as fact. Why are you suggesting that I do?

I'm asking you to actually address my beliefs and opinions instead of trying to discredit my motives.

[SportsRacer]

They tried to kill Cheney? I thought they want to HURT America.

[Taco John]

Well now THERE'S one of the more tasteful "too bad he didn't die" jokes I've read since it happened...

[patteeu]

They tried to kill Cheney? I thought they want to HURT America.

ROFL

Hater. :cuss:

[Logical]

They tried to kill Cheney? I thought they want to HURT America.Genuinely funny. Much better than my poor attempt.

[Chief Henry]

[QUOTE=penchief] I want the issues debated on their own merit instead of having a single interest or ideology framing the debate.
Those are my beliefs. [QUOTE]


What presidential administration did Enron happen under ?

Which administration was left to clean up ENRON and prosecute
the guilty ?


Which administration flew a missle up a camel's ass ?
Which administration is doing something about TERRORISM ?

Which Administration increased tax's on retired people receiving social security benefits ? Which administration has tried to fix social security
but a spinless congress failed to follow through.

Which Administration had 8 years to help poor elderly people receive
cheaper Prescription Drugs? Which Administration actually did help
the poor elderly people receive much cheaper prescription drugs.




For you or any OTHER sick, wacko, radical nut job to openly hope that
a sitting member of a USA Presidential Administration gets killed or harmed just proves that your unworthy of much or any respect.

[penchief]

For you or any OTHER sick, wacko, radical nut job to openly hope that a sitting member of a USA Presidential Administration gets killed or harmed just proves that your unworthy of much or any respect.

Dude, I think you'd better bone up on your reading comprehension skills because nowhere will you find me saying that.

As far as some of that other stuff. I think you might want to bone up on that, too. Sure Enron was in existence before Bush but Kenneth Lay was Bush's bud. "Kenny Boy" helped the White House concoct those mutually beneficial "rolling blackouts." Not only did Enron get to screw the public out of it's hard earned income, but the Bush Administration got what it wanted by undermining the democratic governor of the country's biggest democratic state.

[patteeu]

Dude, I think you'd better bone up on your reading comprehension skills because nowhere will you find me saying that.

As far as some of that other stuff. I think you might want to bone up on that, too. Sure Enron was in existence before Bush but Kenneth Lay was Bush's bud. "Kenny Boy" helped the White House concoct those mutually beneficial "rolling blackouts." Not only did Enron get to screw the public out of it's hard earned income, but the Bush Administration got what it wanted by undermining the democratic governor of the country's biggest democratic state.

I think that maybe you should bone up on your Enron history too. The activities that led to the Enron scandal and the company's collapse were in full swing before Clinton left office. Sure they continued into the Bush administration as well, but Bush had nothing to do with the genesis of the problems at Enron and it was Clinton oversight of corporate accounting during the 90's that paved the way for the creativity of the Enron accountants.

[StcChief]

I think that maybe you should bone up on your Enron history too. The activities that led to the Enron scandal and the company's collapse were in full swing before Clinton left office. Sure they continued into the Bush administration as well, but Bush had nothing to do with the genesis of the problems at Enron and it was Clinton oversight of corporate accounting during the 90's that paved the way for the creativity of the Enron accountants.

one of many train wrecks in 8 years of billie jeff clinton.

[penchief]

I think that maybe you should bone up on your Enron history too. The activities that led to the Enron scandal and the company's collapse were in full swing before Clinton left office. Sure they continued into the Bush administration as well, but Bush had nothing to do with the genesis of the problems at Enron and it was Clinton oversight of corporate accounting during the 90's that paved the way for the creativity of the Enron accountants.

Clinton's oversight? I never said that Enron wasn't up to no good before Bush came to office. But I also think it would be a little inaccurate to describe Enron's relationship with the Bush Administration as innocent.

Again, why aren't Americans entitled to know who was present at the Energy Task Force Meetings and what was discussed? I'd love to know if rolling blackouts were discussed. I'd love to know if Iraq was discussed. I wouldn't doubt it if they were. In fact, a betting man might want to take that bet.

Enron and Cheneyburton are soulmates. If the Bush Administration were cleaning up the Clinton Administration's Enron mess you can bet we'd have heard about that along with every other thing they blamed Clinton for. And it would have been played at maximum volume. If they thought there was a PR advantage to making up stories about the Clinton's vandalizing the White House you can be sure they would have told the world what Clinton did to enable Enron. But that would have been bad for Enron, and maybe even Bush.

[patteeu]

Clinton's oversight? I never said that Enron wasn't up to no good before Bush came to office. But I also think it would be a little inaccurate to describe Enron's relationship with the Bush Administration as innocent.

Again, why aren't Americans entitled to know who was present at the Energy Task Force Meetings and what was discussed? I'd love to know if rolling blackouts were discussed. I'd love to know if Iraq was discussed. I wouldn't doubt it if they were. In fact, a betting man might want to take that bet.

Enron and Cheneyburton are soulmates. If the Bush Administration were cleaning up the Clinton Administration's Enron mess you can bet we'd have heard about that along with every other thing they blamed Clinton for. And it would have been played at maximum volume. If they thought there was a PR advantage to making up stories about the Clinton's vandalizing the White House you can be sure they would have told the world what Clinton did to enable Enron. But that would have been bad for Enron, and maybe even Bush.

I realize that you have a pet conspiracy theory, but leaving that aside, I know of nothing improper between the Bush administration and Enron.

[penchief]

I realize that you have a pet conspiracy theory, but leaving that aside, I know of nothing improper between the Bush administration and Enron.

If Enron and Halliburton were both present at the Energy Task Force Meetings and they did discuss the rolling black outs and they did discuss the invasion of Iraq; do you think that would be information that the American people are entitled to know?

[Chief Henry]

If Enron and Halliburton were both present at the Energy Task Force Meetings and they did discuss the rolling black outs and they did discuss the invasion of Iraq; do you think that would be information that the American people are entitled to know?



Insert tin hat right here !

[Radar Chief]

If Enron and Halliburton were both present at the Energy Task Force Meetings and they did discuss the rolling black outs and they did discuss the invasion of Iraq; do you think that would be information that the American people are entitled to know?

Since you’re use’n it so frequently to tie your conspiracy theory together, I thought you’d like the definition of the word. ;)

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/if

Main Entry: 1if
Pronunciation: 'if, &f
Function: conjunction
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gif; akin to Old High German ibu if
1 a : in the event that b : allowing that c : on the assumption that d : on condition that
2 : WHETHER <asked if the mail had come> <I doubt if I'll pass the course>
3 -- used as a function word to introduce an exclamation expressing a wish <if it would only rain>
4 : even though : although perhaps <an interesting if untenable argument>
5 : and perhaps not even <few if any changes are expected> -- often used with not <difficult if not impossible>
- if anything : on the contrary even : perhaps even <if anything, you ought to apologize>

[Logical]

If Enron and Halliburton were both present at the Energy Task Force Meetings and they did discuss the rolling black outs and they did discuss the invasion of Iraq; do you think that would be information that the American people are entitled to know?



I suppose it depends on what and how it would have been discussed. Prevention, nope, encouragement to gouge certainly.

[patteeu]

If Enron and Halliburton were both present at the Energy Task Force Meetings and they did discuss the rolling black outs and they did discuss the invasion of Iraq; do you think that would be information that the American people are entitled to know?

I don't know what the rules are for this type of hypothetical meeting so I don't know whether the American people are entitled to know what was discussed or not. One thing I do know is that the answer to that question is not dependent on the content of the discussion.

I'll take this response, though, as an admission that you don't know of anything improper between the Bush administration and Enron either.

[penchief]

I don't know what the rules are for this type of hypothetical meeting so I don't know whether the American people are entitled to know what was discussed or not. One thing I do know is that the answer to that question is not dependent on the content of the discussion.

I'll take this response, though, as an admission that you don't know of anything improper between the Bush administration and Enron either.

It's a hypothetical question that deserves at least a hypothetical answer. If those two entities were present and those two issues were topics of discussion, would the American people be entitled to know that?

I'd say yes. Considering the unexplained national security-like secrecy surrounding those meetings and considering the outcomes of the war in Iraq and the oil industry's windfall, I believe it would be appropriate to know if they were there and what they were lobbying for if they were there.

[patteeu]

It's a hypothetical question that deserves at least a hypothetical answer. If those two entities were present and those two issues were topics of discussion, would the American people be entitled to know that?

I'd say yes. Considering the unexplained national security-like secrecy surrounding those meetings and considering the outcomes of the war in Iraq and the oil industry's windfall, I believe it would be appropriate to know if they were there and what they were lobbying for if they were there.

I don't know what the rules are so I can't give you a legal answer and I don't know what all the competing arguments are so I can't give you a "this is how I think it should be" answer.

[go bowe]

Move over Rich Scanlon. Step aside Chuck Norris. Dick Cheney's in the house.hell ya!

i was afraid he might have been harmed...

we can't afford to do without dick...

after all, he's the most powerful man in the us...

heck, he runs most of the free world...

dick plays johnny to the president's ed mcmahon (anybody remember him?)

[go bowe]

I'm sure he'll come back to the White House and tell Russert on MTP that securing Afghanistan has been a resolute success.resolute success?

there's something about the word resolute...

why does it sound like something dick cheney would say?

the term resolute success is pure cheney...

everyone knows he's a wizard...

he can produce mushroom clouds at the drop of a hat...

big mushroom clouds, really big...

(don't tell taco about this, he'll turn it into a new conspiracy thread)

[patteeu]

hell ya!

i was afraid he might have been harmed...

we can't afford to do without dick...

after all, he's the most powerful man in the us...

heck, he runs most of the free world...

dick plays johnny to the president's ed mcmahon (anybody remember him?)

:LOL:

Did you hear about the Pakistanis detaining the former Defense Minister of the Taliban the day Dick Cheney visited the country? It's not clear from the story, but I'd venture to guess that Cheney personally kicked the door down and was the first guy in the room when they raided this mullah's safehouse.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/01/news/afghan.php

[CHIEF4EVER]

:LOL:

Did you hear about the Pakistanis detaining the former Defense Minister of the Taliban the day Dick Cheney visited the country? It's not clear from the story, but I'd venture to guess that Cheney personally kicked the door down and was the first guy in the room when they raided this mullah's safehouse.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/01/news/afghan.php

LMAO

Cheney: Right! Arrest that bastard over there, shoot the rest of that lot.

[go bowe]

It Could also mean Piss Cup. Which is about what your post was worth.speak for yourself there, buddy...

posts from piss cup are just as entertaining as posts from [inset almost any poster's name with an opposing pov]...

it's part of what makes the planet turn...

[banyon]

I don't know what the rules are for this type of hypothetical meeting so I don't know whether the American people are entitled to know what was discussed or not. One thing I do know is that the answer to that question is not dependent on the content of the discussion.

I'll take this response, though, as an admission that you don't know of anything improper between the Bush administration and Enron either.

When you conduct public policy in secrecy, you leave yourself open to speculation about what transpired.

[patteeu]

When you conduct public policy in secrecy, you leave yourself open to speculation about what transpired.

And when you ask for advice in public you only get the advice that people are willing to publicly give. I understand that there are competing arguments here, I just don't know enough about them to have a personal opinion other than the fact that I'm always inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to Dick Cheney. :)

[go bowe]

Since you’re use’n it so frequently to tie your conspiracy theory together, I thought you’d like the definition of the word. ;)

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/if it all depends on what the meaning of the the word "if" is... PBJ PBJ PBJ

[go bowe]

:LOL:

Did you hear about the Pakistanis detaining the former Defense Minister of the Taliban the day Dick Cheney visited the country? It's not clear from the story, but I'd venture to guess that Cheney personally kicked the door down and was the first guy in the room when they raided this mullah's safehouse.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/01/news/afghan.php lmao...

i can actually see him doing just that...

but i would think that the military and the secret service would never let him do that...

[penchief]

And when you ask for advice in public you only get the advice that people are willing to publicly give. I understand that there are competing arguments here, I just don't know enough about them to have a personal opinion other than the fact that I'm always inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to Dick Cheney. :)

Asking for advice privately so that one can receive unfiltered advice is a far different thing than concealing that advice after the fact when it may be relevent to the biggest policy blunder this country has ever made.

Governmental transparency is the legacy of the United States. It is what we are taught as young citizens of a open democratic society. Why is it suddenly taboo? Why don't we practice what we teach?

[go bowe]

I don't know what the rules are so I can't give you a legal answer and I don't know what all the competing arguments are so I can't give you a "this is how I think it should be" answer.waffler, flip-flopper, hairatick (cp spelling?)...

spineless charlatan (or is it chameleon?), you have let us down, again... :deevee: :deevee: :deevee:

no more! no, no more! :banghead:

no mas, no mas, no mas (for our spanish-speaking friends)...

*grabs club and drives away*

*gets lost*

*more crying*

*(additional lame drama is available now for a reasonable fee)*