By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
It's too late for the petulant Dick Cheney to earn any credibility with most Americans.
Not only do many Americans think he's the worst vice president in U.S. history. Now Cheney is taking pot shots at the person -- Joe Biden -- whom voters elected as his successor.
Cheney's most churlish comments have been directed at Biden, who back in October said that Cheney "has been the most dangerous vice president we have had probably in American history."
Over the weekend, Cheney said he thought President-elect Barack Obama "does not expect (Biden) to have as consequential a role as I have had during my time."
Biden responded by saying he made Obama promise that the vice president would be involved in every major decision the president makes in the upcoming four years.
Cheney got more bad news Monday.
A new CNN-Opinion Research Corp. survey said 23 percent of Americans think he is the worst vice president in history.
An additional 41 percent rated Cheney as a poor vice president.
Another fun fact: Only 1 percent said he's the best vice president in U.S. history.
While the poll did break down mostly along party lines -- with 80 percent of Democrats calling Cheney the worst vp ever -- a healthy 60 percent of independents agreed.
Delicious
Digg
Okay, this made me laugh:
Okay, this made me laugh:
"Biden responded by saying he made Obama promise."
Let me find that quote where Obama said that not only will he vote against FISA but will filibuster it as well. Then when everything is all nice and tidy for him, he votes for it.
What will Biden do when The Messiah breaks his promise?
You left out one of Reagans
You left out one of Reagans best legacies - the Aids epidemic. If only those Republicans could say condom.
KenM & Kcgrh - Interface
KenM & Kcgrh - Interface will not admit that Clinton was anything but the greatest. That's the difference between conservatives & libs. We will be critical of a conservative president when needed, but the libs will go to their death defending every move their guy made (or didn't make). I think they may be insecure in their beliefs. That's unfortunate because we should always be critical of mistakes whoever makes them. That's why libs frustrate us so much because they just sit and sip the kool aid.
twas_was wrote:KenM & Kcgrh
Huh? I never said anything about Clinton being "the greatest." I just corrected the hysterical/historical revisionism of you moronic kool-aid drinkers.
I know it irritates you right-wing bozos when people point out how your account of things is so vastly out of whack with reality, but hey, someone's got to do it. :-)
But I know my limitations -- I can correct your misrepresentations, but I can't fix dumb.
Good night, Kenny. Kisses.
And the point you keep
And the point you keep skating over is that, by 2001, we KNEW Bin Laden was a credible threat, and what, again, did Bush do in his first nine months?
Yep, he ignored that threat.
He couldn't ignore it any longer on 9/11/01.
So what'd he do? He used it as a pretense to attack, of all places, Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11.
And what would you want Bush
And what would you want Bush to do in the first months of his presidency, invade Afghanistan? I am sure the congress and american people would have been right behind him on that one.
kenm_1262 wrote:And what
So Kenny, you excoriate Clinton for doing everything he could to get Bin Laden, but you bend over so far backwards that your head is seemingly stuck up your butt to excuse Bush for utterly ignoring the known threat posed by Bin Laden once he takes the reins?
Again, you simply can't fix dumb. Jeez.
Clinton did nothing moron,
Clinton did nothing moron, you clearly do not have any understanding of anything. AQ attacked us numerous times and CLinton did nothing but shoot a few cruise missles that did NOTHING. AQ attacked us one time and Bush went after them with a fury they have not recovered from. Your head is so far up your ass you need a window in your stomach just to see where you are going.
"Bush went after them with a
"Bush went after them with a fury they have not recovered from" Ahhahhaa! Ha! Hahahahahah! Hee heee heeeee! Osama bin Laden thumbs his nose at the U.S. from his hidey hole for SEVEN YEARS and sees us doing EXACTLY what he said we'd do--bankrupt ourselves chasing down anybody who waves a flag that says al Qaeda! God, what would we do for fall-down laughing idiocy if it weren't for these dimwitted rightist moonbats who think they can still lie their way out of everything! OMG, that's funny! "Bush went after them with a fury they have not recovered from"--BUSH SAID IN FRONT OF A CAMERA WITH MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WATCHING THAT HE WASN'T WORRIED ABOUT BIN LADEN, YOU DELUSIONAL RETARD!
This is just priceless, this silly mincing twit is going to still be declaring Bush's victory over terrorism after Red China cashes in the trillion dollars worth of our debt the coward Bush sold them to finance his vanity war, and sends the whole country into receivership, while Osama bin Laden is opening Chuck E. Cheeses all over northern Pakistan.
edith wrote: [quoting
That made me laugh out loud. Delusional retard, indeed. Talk about an utterly selective memory, rewriting history as it never occurred.
I need an alternative term
I need an alternative term for "retard." I have no need to offend the developmentally challenged by suggesting that after eight years of having the football yanked away they would still rush to the defense of the noble Lucy.
edith wrote:I need an
Clueless, koolaid drinkin, delusional twit.
Works for me.
EDITH EDITH
EDITH EDITH EDITH.......
Lets get this straight once and for all.
Reagan was the greatest president there ever was.
Please quit trashing our great President of these United States, the honorable George Bush.
This is just priceless. If you think you can do better you can run in 4yrs.
oops ..... silence is deadly.....
ursalt wrote:EDITH EDITH
Lets get this straight once and for all.
Reagan was the greatest president there ever was.
Please quit trashing our great President of these United States, the honorable George Bush.
This is just priceless. If you think you can do better you can run in 4yrs.
oops ..... silence is deadly.....
Reagan's legacy:
1. mentally ill people kicked out of hospitals, beginning the homeless crisis
2. the destruction of labor unions
3. trickle down economic policies, which destroy the middle class
4. the invasion of Grenada
5. he ripped the solar panels off the White House
6. Iran/Contra
7. Savings and loan meltdown
Yep, he was just the GREATEST.
Interface, let's talk in the
Interface, let's talk in the here and now, shall we?? Bush is gone and you libs should let it drop. the big 0 knows the Islamofacists want to kill us, so let's "see" what he does. I predict another attack on American soil because the big 0 is by nature a lib pacifist(is there any other type), and he is going to severely weaken our intelligence capabilities such that we are attacked again.
If at the end of his first, and only term, we have not been attacked then I will have a lot of crow pie to eat, but I'm not saving room for dessert.
You know KC I got to go
You know KC I got to go with you on this one. The kids have run this one into the ground and there ain't no stopping them. We'll have to turn this car around if they don't shut up!
With the already existing predicitons of a future attack by defense analysts (due to the inadequacies of the Bush preparedness?) your prediction is both redundant and convenient.
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
Guys, guys, I thought this
Guys, guys, I thought this was to be our opportunity to bid a fond farewell to the Lil' Dick and to thank him for all his service. Now it's degernerated to a pillow fight over the service Monica was giving Bill. Frankly I would have more out of Monica's than Dickie's. $700 billion will buy a lot of entertainment.
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
So Clinton has 8 years to
So Clinton has 8 years to capture someone who was obviously planning these attacks far more than 8 months...Bush gets 8 months. A time in which his entire cabinet is not even in place yet and it is all his fault.
Also let's not forget that Clinton had the 93 WTC, the Oklahoma City bombing, Waco (his own personal terrorist attack), plus the bombings of 4 different barracks and the USS Cole.
Bush's toll: Sept 11 8 months into his administration.
The fact is you may not like his tactics and he made some seriously retarded decisions. But Bush has kept us safe. And you all can whine and cry and proclaim he and Cheney as war criminals and other radical, extreme foaming at the mouth BS. but in the end we were not attacked again.
Let's see who Obama will blame if GOD FORBID something happens early on his watch. Let's see how the savior will handle being in charge of everything. It is easy to back seat drive. Well democrats the whole damn motorcade is yours...enjoy the trip,.
rockslide wrote:Bush gets 8
8 months during which he did dick. 8 months in which he ignored intelligence reports about the danger posed by Al Qaeda.
Yeah, he should be held accountable by anyone with half a brain.
But Rockside... Willie
But Rockside... Willie stayed at a Holiday Inn Express and did get bj's during his administration. All the while hunting down terrorists, NOT.
Yes 80% said he was the
Yes 80% said he was the worst because most likely the only VPs most Americas could possibly remember is Cheney and Al "Asst Savior of the World" Gore.
Oh we Dickie we shall miss
Oh we Dickie we shall miss ye...
That little half smile that curls up into a full sneer...
The dancing-darting eyes that say "I'm water boarding you in my mind"...
Like the tide, the ebb & flow of cash to Haliburton and it's subsidiaries...
Ah, these were your salad days Dickie, your legacy...you've taught us well and we shall NEVER FORGET!
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
Good point, Nukman - however
Good point, Nukman - however the discussion was on Cheney and that brought out the libs talking points. So we just sit back and let them rewrite history? Nothing will change your mind (if possible) until there's another attack on Obama's watch. We will see how he reacts. If he takes his cue from Clinton and treats it like a criminal felony, we will be in for more of the same. I hope that after he's seen the intelligience briefings that he realizes that his campaign rhetoric is not the answer. But he's dug himself in a big hole with the far-left loons, it may be difficult.
twas_was wrote:If he takes
twas, you are a moron, you know that? I mean, really, a friggin' moron. Jeez. Drunk on your kool-aid, you are.
Interface - you are crossing
Interface - you are crossing the line. Is name-calling how you resolve differences of opinion? If so, please get off the blog. This is not the place for childish behavior.
All you people are nuts.
All you people are nuts. You don't even try to keep your tirades on point.
You rehash the past administrations actions 15 years ago.
The blog was about what Cheney and Biden said about each other yesterday. What you people put out sounds like a Charlie Brown soundtrack,
Blah, blah, blah.
No twas, he couldn't fix it
No twas, he couldn't fix it in 8 months. But he could have paid attention to it.
One month before 9/11, he was handed an intelligence briefing that said "bin Laden determined to attack within US with airplanes". Remember what Bush did?
He went on vacation. By that time, less than one year into his administration, he had already taken more vacation time than Clinton took in 8 years.
When the WTC was attacked in 1993, (less than a month after Clinton took office), his administration captured and imprisoned the terrorists responsible. Bush invaded a country that was not responsible for 9/11 and has never captured any of the terrorists who attacked the WTC in 2001. Yet we still hear this argument from you Bush defenders and Clinton haters that Clinton is somehow responsible for 9/11.
But then anyone who is dumb enough to defend Cheney can't be playing with a full deck.
Interface, I forgot that
Interface,
I forgot that high school is out for two weeks. I guess we can expect to hear a lot from you for the next 12 days.
Just because I sound more
Just because I sound more educated than the average right-winger, you needn't assume I'm still in school. :-) But thank you, anyhow.
Yael, as I expect from you,
Yael, as I expect from you, your blog responds to what you expected Dick Cheney to say rather than what he said.
You stated that Cheney said "that he (Obama) did not expect Biden to have as consequential as role has (Cheney) has had." What Cheney said was
"Obama may not expect Biden to have as consequential a role as Cheney has had, but that would be up to Obama."
In addition your comment that voters selected Biden as Cheneys successor is erronious. The voters selected Obama to be president. Biden is like the crappy toy in Crackerjacks, you don't want it and you don't care about it, but it comes along with the candy coated popcorn and peanuts.
And, as an editorial note, as a professsional columnist, don't you feel obligated to include all of the data and percentage breakdowns in a survey rather than just the part of the survey that supports your demented ideas.
Nukman wrote:Biden is like
Wow. I wonder what that makes Cheney? A huge pimple on Bush's ass?
We will see how the big 0
We will see how the big 0 protects us from the Islamofacists. I predict an attack and a weak big 0 response.
He can't even get a CIA director because the left wing pacifists to whom he is beholden won't allow anyone with intelligence experience to have the job. Gotta love these libs.....
Obama's difficulties in
Obama's difficulties in finding a CIA director are he has to find someone that was not in on the interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration. Kind of tough considering all of the top level guys working intelligence and security were all aware of the techniques. Secondly, he must find a guy who is willing to take the heat if another attack comes that could have been prevented by those interrogation techniques that Obama wants to ban based on moral grounds. Obama can not tell the world we wont use tough interrogation techniques and then allow the CIA to do these very same techniques. That would open up the director to criminal liability becasue everyone knows Obama wont admit to ordering those types of interrogations. Thirdly, the big one is the only way to effectively protect us is to continue the same policies devised by the Bush administration that are so loathed by the liberals of this country. Obama has made it clear he does not share those views so to tie the hands of the CIA director off the bat does not seem like such a good idea. Who wants to take a job that will only result in either you going to jail or being blamed for a major attack.
kcgrh wrote:We will see how
Wouldn't it be more accurate to call Bush "the big 0," given how he ignored not only the Clinton administration's warnings about the dangers of Bin Laden, but also ignored intelligence briefings about Bin Laden for the first 9 months of his administration about Bin Laden, preferring to spend his time on vacation? And then, after 9/11, he promised to get Bin Laden "dead or alive," and then promptly (and inexplicably) laid plans to invade and occupy Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, and indeed hampered our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and bring the 9/11 conspirators to justice.
Yeah, "the Big Zero" is a pretty apt moniker for Bush. I'll take "the Big O" over him any day. Just 28 days left until comptence is restored to our government.
That's it Interface - just
That's it Interface - just as you laid out. I kind of seem to remember that the Afghan issue was pretty much under control (except for locating one man in a cave) before we went into Iraq, but I must be mistaken. The biggest mistake made during both conflicts was allowing the Taliban to reassert itself in Afghan. And oh, Bin Laden was running around planning and bombing under Clinton's nose for most of his term, but Bush is supposed to fix all of that in 8 months?
twas_was wrote:Bin Laden was
Funny, isn't it, how I credit Clinton for at least trying to get him and failing while excoriating Bush for ignoring the threat entirely.
I don't see it as a coincidence that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. 'Twas Bush who let our vigilance lapse.
Clinton did not try to
Clinton did not try to capture or kill Bin Laden. Clinton tried to handle all of the attacks during his administration as a police function and accomplished nothing. His policies did nothing to cripple or curtail the growth of AQ, so spare me the revisionist history that Clinton tried to capture Bin Laden.
I always get a kick out of the fact that Bush did nothing about the warnings. What would you have liked Bush to do. Invade Afghanistan pre-emptively? How about institute the Patriot act before 9-11? Maybe establish a homeland defense establishment? The facts are that the laws Bush inherited did not permit him to do anything to stop the 9-11 terrorists. There was no intelligence sharing, no FISA act to deal with communications within the USA, there was nothing a president could do to protect us from the attacks of 9-11. Clinton could have asked congress for authority to do many of these actions, but he did not, it was not that important to him and politically, he had other issues. As I listen to all of the Libs scream about detainee's and GITMO today after the fact I can only imagine what the would have happened to Bush if he tried to pursue these policies prior to 9-11.
kenm_1262 wrote:Clinton did
Kenny, your historical revisionism is somewhat amusing, but mostly it's really tired. You need to get your history from real sources rather than right-wing email frothings at the mouth.
You of course completely ignore Clinton's 1998 ordering of missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Bin Laden, where we missed Bin Laden by just a few hours.
More details referenced in this Snopes article, which also notes how the Clinton administration successfully captured and convicted the 1993 WTC bombers and also the embassy bombers in 1998. Unlike Bush, Clinton took the threat of Bin Laden seriously.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp
Bush, by contrast, ignored the threat of Bin Laden for the first 9 months of his tenure, setting the stage for the murderous attack on Americans on 9/11/01.
That's history, not revisionism. Sorry that reality has to smack you in the face like that.
Interface my name is not
Interface my name is not kenny your first mistake. The 1998 missile strikes were launched without eyes on OBL or any of his members. It was a shot gun blast in an area the size of CA. It hit nothing and did not dissuade AQ or OBL one bit. Clinton captured the WTC bombers and in the process exposed a number of intel sources which then compromised our ability to conduct further surveillance on AQ and its networks, another reason why the war on terror can not be prosecuted in the courts. A number of high ranking planners who struck the african embassies were captured when Bush ordered the Army into Afghanistan. Lastly, when Clinton was offered OBL by Sudan he turned him down. That is the reality. Clinton made no concerted effort tgo capture of kill OBL, Bush has and may have actually killed OBL, but we may never know.
Kenny, you're rewriting
Kenny, you're rewriting history once again.
Sorry, man, but that dog ain't gonna hunt.
Read 'em and weep:
_____________
So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.
Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.
We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It's a fancy term for those "why didn't someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.
from:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html
Again Interface learn to
Again Interface learn to read, my name is not Kenny. Secondly, Clinton turned down the Sudaneese Government on OBL. Clinton people saying there was no credible offers is your answer, please. Clinton did not view him as a serious threat, if he had any offer would have resulted in our detaining him. Clinton passed on AQ and OBL for 7 years. Bush has gone after AQ and OBL non stop for 7 years those are the real facts.
kenm_1262 wrote:Bush has
HAHAHAHAHA, Kenny, ya kill me with your willful ignorance. My god, it's guys like you who give Bush his 20% approval rating! Keep on fighting the good fight.
Jeez, you just can't fix dumb.
Bush's approval rating has
Bush's approval rating has nothing to do with the fight being waged on AQ and OBL. By any measure AQ is decimated, broke, defeated in iraq and confined to the outback of a Pakistan. The only thing dumb is your defense of the CLinton Administation when it comes to AQ and OBL.
Interface, what dreamland
Interface, what dreamland complete with history revision are you living in? Clinton, while he was getting his BJ's didn't do anything but bomb a pill factory. Let's not twist THE FACTS, which you libs so love to ignore....
Interface, as you no doubt
Interface, as you no doubt suspected, I can hardly wait for January 20. Are you planning on going to the celebration?
Four years of Chicago/IL politics to look forward to, what a joyous new year's present.
Talk about ignorant! We were
Talk about ignorant!
We were attacked while Reagan was president, brainiac. Beirut Marine baracks bombing ring a bell?
Typical neocon. Trying to rewrite history.
Yea, a neocon trying to
Yea, a neocon trying to rewrite history! We neocons should leave that trick to the people who do it best - the libs. I am proud to say as a "neocon" (whatever that is) that I cannot and will not even try to do something you guys own.
you right-wing crazies have
you right-wing crazies have very selective memories, I must say.
Your interpretation of the
Your interpretation of the don't think it is intended for Biden to have the same roll as he has had as a 'pot shot' is ludicrous. However this is an opinion column and such opinion is not surprising from this source.
Ursalt must be proud to be
Ursalt must be proud to be in the 1% that thinks Mr. Cheney is just the best. Somebody needs to tell him that it doesn't mean he's in the 99th percentile. Usurping the authority of the President and Congress ... oh what's the word...bloodless coup? He also confuses corelation and causation regarding the lack of terrorist attacks. They've been lucky. The administration hasn't met the benchmarks set out for port/border security.
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?