
A day after the President’s less than lackluster State of the Union Address, during an interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN, Vice President Dick Cheney responded to comments regarding “blunders and failures” in Iraq by saying, “I just think it’s hogwash.”
Hogwash? Is he joking? This from the Vice President of the United States, an educated man who has served in the White House with four presidents? The man who was CEO of Halliburton Corporation, the world’s largest oilfield services and products company? Former Secretary of Defense and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom? That’s his brilliant response?
Granted, he has been having a rather bad month, which may explain his crankiness. First the Democrats swept into Washington with great fanfare and took control of Congress. To add insult to injury, a woman (gasp) was elected Speaker of the House. Not only did Nancy Pelosi take charge of the House, she did it with panache. Graceful and stylish, she exuded confidence as she took the oath of office and made history. Hold onto your pace maker, Dick, she’s just two ticks away from the Oval Office.
Nancy and Company came armed with a serious agenda. A laundry list of bills they intended to pass, and did, within the first 100 hours that the House was in session. By passing bills that would raise the minimum wage, require Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices, cut interest rates on student loans, and repeal subsidies to big oil companies, they struck right at the heart of the power brokers who have had a strangle hold on our purse strings for the last six years. They have systematically begun to dismantle the hierarchy of power given to the top 1% of Americans by Cheney and the GOP, who methodically tried to erase the Middle Class.
If that weren’t enough to make any ultra-conservative crabby, an African American and a women threw their hats into the ring along with several other Democratic hopefuls, while the slate of GOP candidates remained glaringly stark. At the same time the President’s approval rating continued it’s free fall.
When asked in the same interview if he thought Hillary Clinton would make a good President, Cheney, wearing his permanent scowl, sharply responded, “No, I don’t.”
“Why?” Blitzer asked.
“Because she’s a Democrat.” Cheney answered tartly.
That’s profound.
Blitzer then moved on to the subject of Cheney’s daughter Mary, a lesbian, who is pregnant, and how it ran contrary to the religious right. Cheney replied that he was delighted about having another grandchild, “And I think, frankly, you’re out of line with that question.”
On Fox News Channel, Tony Snow, White House spokesman defended Cheney’s response. “People should not be trying to draw family members in. I think that family members ought to be off the limits.”
Oh, I get it now. It’s perfectly acceptable to authorize wholesale wiretapping without a court order for the rest of us in the country, but not to ask personal questions about his (Cheney’s) family.
Now his former aide, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby is on trial for perjury and obstructing the investigation into who leaked the name of former CIA operative, Valerie Plame, to the public. Three witnesses have taken the stand, and fingers are pointing toward Cheney. One wonders how long before Scooter decides he no longer wants to be the sacrificial lamb in this case.
And finally, to top off an already dismal month, the Administration is hard pressed to find support for the deployment of additional troops to Iraq, even within their own ranks. According to the L.A. Times the Vice President responded to the administration’s critics by saying they were “dead wrong” about the war.
Wait. Let me get this straight. We’re supposed to ignore the recommendations of an Iraq Study Group, authorized by the President, a likely resolution by the Foreign Relations Committee condemning the use of additional troops, the expulsion of war hawks from Congress by the voters and war protests from D.C. to L.A.? We’re supposed to believe you when in 2005 you told us “that the insurgency was in its last throes”?
No, Mr. Vice President, I don’t think so. What’s wrong is a war we were deceived into starting based on half-truths and outright lies. A war that our allies, members of congress, and American citizens no longer support. A war that is costing thousands of lives and, according to a study done in 2001 by Nobel Prize winning economist and Columbia professor, Joseph Stiglitz, along with Harvard budget expert, Linda Bilmes, 1-2 trillion dollars. Yes, that’s trillions. I’m pretty sure you will be standing all by yourself with your assertion that you are right and everyone else is “dead wrong”.
So, in the last 30 days, after running roughshod over the country for the last six years, Dick Cheney now is watching his political powerhouse begin to deteriorate. Given all that he’s had to deal with this last month, it’s no wonder he’s contentious. Perhaps we should show him a little empathy.
Hogwash.
Cheri Cabot, Politics Correspondent
Cheri’s column, “Personal About Politics”, published every Tuesday, will reflect on how the life of a 57 year-old, middle class woman is affected by politics, policy and the current state of the nation - a look at the personal aspects of politics. The articles will be posted to Politics.gather.com.
Cheri is a single teacher and writer, living in Southern California. She has two grown children, one in Iowa and one at Columbia University, and is the proud grandmother of two. Cheri is also a purveyor of fine coffee, warm chatter and dry wit.
You can find all of Cheri’s columns at Personal About Politics. Keep up with Cheri’s other postings and Gather activity by joining her Gather network – just click here, ccabot.gather.com, and select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.
You’ll find Cheri and other Politics Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other Politics experts at Politics.gather.com


Comments: 164
I say to Cheney's "hogwash", "throw the bum out". Here's a man who collected millions last year as a bonus from halliburton, a company that was awarded a no bid contract. Isn't it time for impeachment proceedings?
It's appalling to me that one man, obviously void of any morals, can create so much damage to our country.
BLITZER: Here's what Jim Webb, senator from Virginia said in the Democratic response last night -- he said, "The president took us into this war recklessly. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable and predicted disarray that has followed."
And it's not just Jim Webb; it's some of your good Republican friends in the Senate and the House are now seriously questioning your credibility, because of the blunders and the failures. Gordon Smith...
CHENEY: Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash.
Just thought I would point that out. Also, worth noting that the State of the Union was generally well accepted as I cruised the various news channels afterward and got the opinion of the many talking heads.
CHENEY: No, I don't.
BLITZER: Why?
CHENEY: Because she's a Democrat. I don't agree with her philosophically and from a policy standpoint.
----------
This is a very plain and straight forward answer. How do you not get it? It should be simple enough for anyone to understand. And why would he give Hillary any more time? He kept it short and sweet. I like Cheney ... he's a good man. Did you know that the stock options he got from Haliburtan when he retired... all the profits will go to charity. One hundred percent, signed off to a trust that he can not revoke. That's a principled man.
I am a Political Correspondent because I am a good writer, my articles create conversation, and I am not a "talking head" for the Bush Administration....meaning I do not write what I am told to write. That is one of the most important rights we have as citizens of the United States of America....freedom of speech. During the last 6 years, that right has been in jeopardy. I find it delightful and refreshing that Gather has provided an open format for people to write and speak freely. They do not
allow only one-sided commentary....if that were the case, you would have been kicked off long ago. But, if you only want to read what makes you happy, I am sure you can find channels that pander to your ultra conservative, head-in-the sand, 'I believe everything Bush and Cheney tell me' mentality.
Sean - let's look at direct quotes from the article here to see things taken out of context:
------------
Vice President Dick Cheney responded to comments regarding "blunders and failures" in Iraq by saying, "I just think it's hogwash."
Hogwash? Is he joking?
....then she follows with ad hominem attacks based on his association with Haliburton.
NOW THE CORRECTION:
Vice President Dick Cheney DID NOT responded to comments regarding "blunders and failures" in Iraq by saying, "I just think it's hogwash."
He responded to the PREMISE of the question. Let's look at what Wolf said:
"...some of your good Republican friends in the Senate and the House are now seriously questioning your credibility, because of the blunders and the failures..."
Wolf is INJECTING his own opinion in the question, and saying that Republicans are questioning Cheney's credibility.
Sean - now it's your turn. Prove it's not hogwash. Show me the quote from ONE republican who speaks of Cheney's "credibility".
It's garbage journalism and Cheney called him on it, and I'm calling Cheri on the same thing.
I am married to a man who served in our country's Army for 20 years, who knew one of the weapons inspectors searching for WMD's. This inspector reported no WMD's discovered, he made the statement publicly and privately. These reports were not heeded and our soldiers were sent ahead to die seeking to destroy what was not there. The death of these young men is personal in this house (as in so many others), many of the soldiers trained with my husband and on more than one occasion he has acknowledged personal acquaintance with a soldier who perished in Iraq. Our soldiers deserve a better plan, not one that has ultimately put so many of them to death.
The next year in the political arena should be akin to watching a tennis match comprised of differing viewpoints, opinions and ideas. I believe this coming election may be pivotal to the future of our country. This is not to say other elections have held no importance, that certainly isn't true. However there may be a greater opportunity for change than there has been for many years.
As a Political Correspondent you will certainly have much material to work with. I look forward to more thought provoking journalism from you.
Just a point to the person who said a columnist here has to be objective and not take sides. That's what a reporter is supposed to do. A columnist always has a personal point of view in their writings.
"And it's not just Jim Webb; it's some of your good Republican friends in the Senate and the House are now seriously questioning your credibility, because of the blunders and the failures."
Cheney replies: "Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash."
The definition of Hogwash is: Worthless, false, or ridiculous speech or writing; nonsense.
LIBERALS... clear your minds. Cheney's statement about hogwash was in reference to Wolf's question... which was written down. Wolf did not say this off the cuff.. it was purposelly written down... and it was HOGWASH.
There is no need for me to defend my statements any further because I can't make it any more clear, and you guys couldn't be any more thick in the head.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
Now replace the word "priest" with the word "Democrat," and that is Chaney's argument. And since were talking about fallacies lets look at the ones you and Chaney have committed, Description of Appeal to Authority, of Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, Begging the Question, Circumstantial Ad Hominem, Genetic Fallacy, Personal Attack, Relativist Fallacy, and Straw Man fallacy.
So, you want me to produce evidence that republicans are disagreeing with the Bush administration (and Chaney is a part of the Bush administration, so when people speak of it they are including him). Here is something from the associated press: "We've had four other surges since we first went into Iraq," said Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), referring to the administration's plan for an additional 21,500 troops. "None of them produced a long-lasting change in the situation on the ground... In the Senate, Collins joined two Republicans and one Democrat to unveil nonbinding legislation expressing disagreement with Bush's plan." Or there is this one hot off the presses, also from associated press: "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate moved a step closer to repudiating U.S. President George W. Bush's Iraq strategy on Thursday when a key Democrat backed a Republican-crafted proposal opposing a troop increase." Or, " Key Democratic and Republican senators who oppose President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq have forged a joint resolution against the increase. The new, non-binding resolution is sponsored by John Warner, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Democrat Carl Levin." Be interested to see how you spin that. You are so out of touch with reality, Don, that it is scary, but what is even more scary is that so is the Bush administration. So if you think Cheri's journalism is garbage journalism then you must also believe that any journalist that doesn't take the noecon view is also a garbage journalist. Whatever makes you able to sleep at night, Don. Now it's your turn. And, please, remember the rules of logic and reason when you speak again.
Thanks for trying, though.
Maureen Dowd is a ace political writer for the OP-ED section who vocalizes her opinions on the current state of affairs. Whether you agree or disagree isn't the point. The point is, she writes under our constitutional right: Freedom of speech.
You said "other republicans are seriously questioning Bush's new Iraq policy? Just look at the news today and you will see that this statement is true."
Provide one link to a news story where Cheney's credibility is called into question by a republican. Wolf said it, so it must be true.
You said that Cheney made an ad hominem attack on Clinton. Where? He was asked the question would Hillary make a good President. He said no. Wolf asked why? His full statement was clear "Because she's a Democrat. I don't agree with her philosophically and from a policy standpoint."
That is NOT an attack. It's his reason for not thinking she would make a good president. It's like asking me if I would vote for a communist. I would say no - I don't agree with communists philosophically and from a policy standpoint. How is that an attack.
You made no sense in any of your arguments. You rambled alot with assumptions that you proved points along the way. Just ain't so.
As for the Wolf Blitzer question being hogwash, I asked you for one small thing. Quote me one republican who said they have lost confidence in Cheney. Wolf said it in his question, and Cheney called it hogwash. You can't just make shit up without backing it up. There must be ONE instance of a Repbublican stating their lack of confidence.
Prove me wrong. Show me where they said it. I've already been to the site and refuted these mistatements numerous times. Back it up or shut up.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
It references 1997. I will read and try to find something that backs up your statement, Suzi.
Suzi... good luck finding anything that says we must invade and conquer. It's SILLY.
Again, this has to do with the war and nothing to do with PNAC. IF it is mentioned on the PNAC website, it is merely conincidence, but I would bet my last dollar it's not mentioned.
Now Ron, I just know you can point me directly to this thing in PNAC and the permanent Iraq base. Or is it something you've heard other people say? Tell the truth.
"In 1997, a document was drafted by the above people stating that it was imperative for this country to invade and conquer Syria, Iran, and yes, Iraq."
BACK IT UP. It's only one document. You have NO credibility until you can back up what you say.
Ron - PNAC/Iraq Permanant Bases.
Sean - Republicans have 'loss of confidence' of Cheney
Suzi - invade and conquer Syria, Iran, and Iraq
All three of you believe anything. You have no need for first hand knowledge. You just step in line with the liberal talking points.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Ron - let me clarify for you. They mention the word base 126 times. They talk about nearly every existing base in the world and talk about how we should be placed in the future. In other words, there is no specific conspriacy about Iraq - and the discussion is so wide you can make anything out of it. Do you understand why this is a big nothing in regards to the Iraq war? It's a think tank about military strategy and nothing more.
This ill-conceived war was a disaster from the beginning and the Bush regime is compounding it by wanting to force more American soldiers into a woodchipper. Your pals in the White House insist on OTHER AMERICANS make the ultimate sacrifce while their buddies get rich with being awarded no-bid government contracts (see Halliburton) and their children remain safely at home. See you in Iraq, Mr. Patriot.
Am I serving? No. It's a volunteer army last I checked. If I were of the age, I think it would be an honor to serve at this time in our history.
Are we in Iraq just to spread democracy? We are in Iraq for many reasons. Primarily, after 911 we thought it wise to change the political landscape in the Middle East. There were multifacteted reasons for going into Iraq and repeating them here is tiresome. If you like, I will do so in another post.
How many democracies in the Middle East? First, lets start off with the fact that we do not expect a Jeffersonian democracy all at once in Iraq. Regardless, the new government there is democratically elected and you can thank George W. Bush for that. You can also count Israel as a democracy - though not perfect. But this is why we need to help change the culture. And allow me to throw this out: the Middle East has been adopting Western culture on a grand scale for the past 100 years or so - and for anyone to think that they can't change - well, they really haven't been paying attention. So, Mr NoNothingAboutHistory, there has already be democracy in the Middle East.
"This ill-conceived war was a disaster from the beginning". Really? I guess you forgot that we overtook the country within a few weeks, and tore down Saddam's statue. There have been many succeess. Why don't you give the troops some credit for once, Mr. Patriot? lol.
Anywho - seems you're out of gas. Next time, tone it down and try to make one point. Don't get all huffy on me.
I'm going to address one issue at a time. You asked for names of Republicans that no longer support the President's position--I give you this:
A Tale of Two Senators, From Virginia
by Geoffrey Kemp
It would have been unthinkable a year ago that both the senior and junior senators from the traditionally conservative Commonwealth of Virginia would become two of the most powerful critics of President Bush's Iraq War. John Warner has for years been regarded as a most loyal and dependable supporter of Republican presidents. Regarded as the conscience of the Republican Party, he is a man of decency, commanding huge respect, the natural successor to his distinguished former colleague Senator Barry Goldwater.
Until recently, Warner backed virtually all the White House decisions on Iraq. But now he, together with Republican Senators Norm Coleman (MN) and Susan Collins (ME), has offered a non-binding Senate resolution opposing the proposed surge of new U.S. troops into Iraq. This is a painful blow to the White House and demonstrates how serious Bush's problems are. Senator Chuck Hagel, a more maverick Republican, has already come out strongly against the surge, and other Republicans are likely to join the opposition in the coming days. Irrespective of what the Democrats do or say, once a rebellion within the Republican Party takes hold it will be difficult to stop.
More will be coming tomorrow when I go to my file in my office and dredge up the old 1997 statement by the Neo-Cons.
I assure you, the term 'lack of confidence' and 'hogwash' have very specific meanings, and both men knew exactly what they were saying. Cheney was in the right, Wolf was wrong. The VP called him on it. And you, Cheri, misread the dialog.
1. On Oct. 10, 2003, DICK told neocons/jackasses at the Heritage Foundation that Saddam Hussein "had established relationship with al-Qaeda," a charge contradicted by U.S. intelligence briefings Cheney had received before speaking.
The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq found that saddam's secular regime had NO WORKING RELATIONSHIP with al-Qaeda.
2. In the same speech, DICK, still maintained Iraq was a weapons of mass destruction powerhouse. "If Saddam Hussein were in power today," DICK said, "this ally of terrorists would still have a hidden biological weapons program capable of producing deadly agents on short notice."
It was so well hidden that NO ONE, INCLUDING SADDAM, could find it--just like the nuclear weapons and stockpiles of chemical weapons the White House claimed he had before it launched an UNPROVOKED ATTACK on Iraq. to date, no banned weapons have been found despite a exhaustive mutlimillion dollar search.
"I don't think they existed,"concluded David Kay, the neocon inspector handpicked by the White House to find the weapons evidence, after the fact.
3. DICK, trying futility to justify the Iraq war, tried spinning a fairytale to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" episode on Sept. 14, 2003. He told Russert that hijacking ringleader Mohamed Atta met in Prague with Iraqi intelligence before 9-11. He claimed the feds haven't been able to discredit it. "We just don't know," said DICK, who a year earlier told Russert the assertion was "credible."
That's not what the FBI director said. "We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts," Robert Mueller said in a little-noticed April 2002 speech in San Francisco. "The records revealed that Atta was in Virginia Beach [Va.] during the time he supposedly met the Iraqi in Prague."
DICK knew this.
4. In an interview with Russert about the time of the last one, DICK lied/told him,"I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years."
No interest, that is, except for a deferred annual salary and 433,333 shares of unexercised Halliburton stock options. That's right. The shares are worth millions, and DICK'S potential profit goes up with each new contract Halliburton lands.
The oilfied services revenue is driven by contracts, and DICK, who's spent most of his early career in Washington, has been its Goddamn rainmaker. That's why they hired him. Then in 2001, the board parachuted him into the White Hoiuse with a $34 million payout, and 2 years later Halliburton wound up with one of the biggest federal contracts in history, financed at OUR expense.
5. Russert asked DICK if he had any role in the secret $7 BILLION contract the Pentagon gave Halliburton BEFORE the war to rebuild and run Iraq's oil system and even distribute its energy products outside Iraq. "Were you involved in any way in the awarding of those contracts?" Russert asked.
"Of course not, Tim," DICK indignantly replied/LIED. "And as vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of-in any way, shape or form-of contracts led by the Army Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government."
That's not what a Pentagon e-mail uncovered by the government watchdog Judicial Watch suggests. dated march 5, 2003, it says the Halliburton contract "has been coordinated w/VP's [vice president's] office." 3 days later, the Army Corps of Engineers awarded HHalliburton the no-bid contract.
6. Russert asked DICK, "Why was there no bidding?"
"I have no idea," DICK LIED.
There is a 10-page Pentagon document justifying the secret Halliburton deal, declassified in June 2004 thanks to a Judicial Watch lawsuit. In effect, it says DICK'S old firm was favored because it was the only one that could hit the ground running in Iraq--but the only reason it could do that was because the Pentagon gave it a head start. Halliburton got to study its secret contingency plan in November 2002. And a month before the final contract was signed, Halliburton was allowed to "pre-position equipment and personnel" for the Iraq oil project--an advantage Bechtel, Fluor, and other competitors never got.
These are FACTS, Don, not brainless opinions based on misplaced emotion, misinformation, and distorted details. These are not simple, catchy "sound-bites" you hear on Fox News or the screaming idiots on neocon radio. I realize the audience for these media outlets lacks any type of critical thinking skills, but you don't learn anything by listening to these morons. All these media outlets do is reenforce or support your narrow-minded ideas. They tell you HOW AND WHAT TO BELIEVE and all you can do is nod your thick skulls and smile like the sheep that you are.
Let's start with your line of questioning and where you STOLE/COPY them from:
http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=2794
How original, Dickweed. You can fool some of the people some of the time.... ain't gonna get fooled again. LOL
You played yourself, retard.
READ ALL OF THIS - not part... to see what kind of profits Cheney makes. You will see he makes NOTHING after he decided to become VP. The only thing he gets are flat, deferred payments. Anything that has potential for growth is SIGNED AWAY TO CHARITY.
http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html
Thank you. I win, you lose.