Darth Cheney: Would crap on the Bill of Rights again in a heartbeat

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    Patriot Act. Warrantless wiretaps. Illegal war. Ignoring Habeus Corpus. Secret prisons. Torture. War profiteering.

    "Conservative hero" indeed.

    Cheney Still Strongly Supports Waterboarding: "No Apologies"



    cheney_grr.jpg


    No apologies.
     

    redneckmedic

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    8,429
    48
    Greenfield
    Ok, so he's not a great person, lots of folks out there. I though you were supposed to start threads with intellectual dialect to spark conversation. Starting threads for the mere concept of bashing people isn't really what INGO is about is it Rambone? Come on man, you are better than this, we both know it.
     

    DragonGunner

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 14, 2010
    5,514
    113
    N. Central IN
    I saw him last night on Hannity....I believe he did what he thought was best to protect my Country. You may disagree an call him names all you want, but I think he is a smart guy that Loves America an sticks by his guns. But I'm sure there are many here that know they are better an have done much more, so more power to you.

    :patriot:
     

    Pocketman

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 11, 2010
    1,704
    36
    I saw him last night on Hannity....I believe he did what he thought was best to protect my Country. You may disagree an call him names all you want, but I think he is a smart guy that Loves America an sticks by his guns. But I'm sure there are many here that know they are better an have done much more, so more power to you.

    :patriot:
    Not to mention what was best for Halliburton. ;)

    For me it isn't so much about what's best to protect the country as much as it is about honesty and upholding the Constitution. A totalitarian police state would protect the country quite well, but at what other costs?
     

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,196
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    I suspect he feels he was doing his job to the best of his abilities. It's evident he doesn't care what you or anyone else thinks about it. I also suspect the higher ideals that you espouse look a bit more difficult to live up to when the responsibility for the safety of the nation's citizens from an avowed enemy falls on one's shoulders, if that one takes his oath of office seriously. It's easy to point fingers at this policy or that policy when it's not YOUR responsibility. That being said, it's equally easy to lose sight of those values we should hold inviolate when lives are on the line.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 21, 2011
    3,665
    38
    I suspect he feels he was doing his job to the best of his abilities. It's evident he doesn't care what you or anyone else thinks about it. I also suspect the higher ideals that you espouse look a bit more difficult to live up to when the responsibility for the safety of the nation's citizens from an avowed enemy falls on one's shoulders, if that one takes his oath of office seriously. It's easy to point fingers at this policy or that policy when it's not YOUR responsibility. That being said, it's equally easy to lose sight of those values we should hold inviolate when lives are on the line.


    I would love to hear why we didnt attack Pakistan after 9/11. what was it, 2/3rds if not more of the hijackers were from Pakistan? So instead of going after Al Quaida (the group responsible by all means), we went after the Taliban, and Saddam in Iraq?
     

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,196
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    I would love to hear why we didnt attack Pakistan after 9/11. what was it, 2/3rds if not more of the hijackers were from Pakistan? So instead of going after Al Quaida (the group responsible by all means), we went after the Taliban, and Saddam in Iraq?

    Well now, I thought it was 11 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, as was BinLaden. This is the trouble with sorting out who is to blame when terrorists who are members of a widely-spread network are successful in their plots. We took on the Taliban because they refused to turn over the Al Qaeda core group to us for trial. We went after Saddam because just about all the intelligence agencies in the world were convinced he had WMD stockpiles - which he'd already proven he would use (against the Iranians in their war and against the Kurds when they rebelled) and also because we had intelligence that he was cooperating with Al Qaeda to the extent of sponsoring training camps in Iraq.

    Pakistan has been an on-again-off-again ally in the conflict for reasons of their own, but they are not a monolithic society nor do they have a consensus of opinion either Pro-Western or Pro-Jihadi. Much of their Internal Police and Intelligence agency has ties to the Jihadists and sympathizes with them. A good portion of the country is outside the actual control of the central government. And they have nuclear weapons. The same sorts of issues of striking against a nuclear power exist there as they will when/if Iran gets nukes.

    Since neither you nor I have all the relevant intelligence applicable to the situation as it obtained when the decisions were made how to respond to the 9/11 attacks, about all we can do is have fun speculating what SHOULD have been done. But Monday Morning Quarterbacking is much easier than making the call when it matters.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 21, 2011
    3,665
    38


    You think Cheney had NO say in Halliburton getting the no bid contract(s)?
    I wonder how much of all that "missing" and "squandered" money in Iraq was tied to Halliburton.
    side note:

    From wiki:

    "It was anticipated that Halliburton’s $2.5 billion "Restore Iraqi Oil" (RIO) contract would pay for itself as well as for reconstruction of the entire country. Plans called for more oil to be exported from Iraq's northern oil fields than actually occurred. Halliburton’s work on the pipeline crossing the Tigris river at Al Fatah has been called a failure. Critics claim that the oil fields are barely usable and access to international markets is severely limited. As an example, against the advice of its own experts, Halliburton attempted to dig a tunnel through a geological fault zone. The underground terrain was a jumble of boulders, voids, cobblestones, and gravel and not appropriate for the kind of drilling Halliburton planned. "No driller in his right mind would have gone ahead," said Army geologist Robert Sanders when the military finally sent people to inspect the work."
     
    Top Bottom