Wednesday, March 06, 2013

Dick Cheney's "honor."

Rule of law, maybe?
Cheney still hearts waterboarding. “Are you going to trade the lives of a number of people because you want to preserve your honor?” he asked, his voice dripping with contempt.
We must commit [crime x] to save lives is one of the laziest -- and unAmerican -- arguments around. The dumbest right-wing blogger would say the same.

And this guy was the de facto president for 8 years.


Mr. Wonderful said...

How bad is Cheney? By the end of MoDo's column, you almost feel sorry for Bush.

Anonymous said...

Great blog you have here but I was curious if you knew of any
discussion boards that cover the same topics
talked about here? I'd really like to be a part of online community where I can get feedback from other experienced people that share the same interest. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Thanks!

Check out my homepage :: lost data

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Well, Dick, some people's honor is worth more than yours.

Tom Shea said...

I'd say the average child pornographer has more honor than Dick Cheney at this point.

jp said...

"They’re going to say you were a misguided powermonger who, in a paranoid spasm, led this nation into an unthinkable calamity. Sleep on that."

And MoDo was cheering that calamity on, fluttering over W's manly codpiece. History will remember that too, no matter how she tries to revision it.

Batocchio said...

It's a false choice anyway. Torture is immoral, illegal, endangers American lives, and doesn't "work" reliably for accurate intel, and the record to date is just that for Cheney's regime, despite his strong-arming of the CIA to try to get them to say that torture won his war for him. It is true that torture helped start his war for him, since key "proof" presented by Colin Powell at the U.N. was a false confession obtained through torture. Funny, when you essentially bury someone alive in a tiny box for 17 hours and threaten to do it again, suddenly they say what you want them to say.

In eight plus years, I don't think I've yet seen a torture apologist who hasn't ignored both the historical record on torture and its notorious inefficacy and the specific record of the Bush administration. They tortured because they wanted to, and because they thought it proved they were tough (the least charitable explanation is they wanted confessions they knew were false, but confirmation bias is a competitive sport with these wankers). They and their defenders refuse to acknowledge the record because they don't want them to be held accountable; unlike their fictional hero Jack Bauer, who at least was willing to stand trial. They sure as hell won't discuss the confirmed innocent people they tortured, or tortured and killed, or held for months or years in prison. As Rear Admiral John Hutson said, "torture is the method of choice of the lazy, the stupid and the pseudo-tough." <./rant>