-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/27148/dick-cheney-shrugs-off-bush-administration-role-in-economic-ills/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
***********
No no no. You've got it all wrong. Here's the correct sentence (pun intended):
"Current prosecutors will sift out precisely what his role was (is) in the administration."
There, that is more correct.
Either we prosecute him or we cease to exist as a democratic nation. It really is that pivotal. You can bet that right now as I write this, some other nefarious person or persons are sitting down and taking note of the audacity of his crimes and the freedom that he enjoys from culpablity and carving their own plans accordingly. Not everyone goes to church on Sunday. Those who are as ruthless as Cheney may, in the obvious and glaring lack of any consequences whatsoever, be setting their sights on usurping the United States via similar means.
There is no terrorist worse than the underminer. Did I mention that Bush is tight with the Bin Ladens and that arab families are tighter still amongst themselves?
It's time to do the math. We simply must. As painful, stunning and embarassing as it may be, we simply must.
or
http://themoderatevoice.com/18772/guest-voice-d...
“I think there’s no question but what the economic circumstances that he inherited are difficult ones,” Cheney said. "We said that before we left. I don’t think you can blame the Bush administration for the creation of those circumstances. It’s a global financial problem.
“We had, in fact, tried to deal with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac some years before, with major reforms that were blocked by Democrats on the Hill – [House Financial Services Chairman] Barney Frank and [Senate Banking Chairman] Chris Dodd. So I think the notion that you can just sort of throw it off on the prior administration – that’s interesting rhetoric, but I don’t think anybody really cares a lot about that. What they care about is what’s going to work, and how we’re going to get out of these difficulties.”
From the CNN website:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/15/cheney.i...
"But Cheney said he and Bush had to spend money to deal with the September 11, 2001 attacks, the resulting war in Afghanistan, the disaster of 2005's Hurricane Katrina, and the costly and unpopular war in Iraq, now nearly six years old.
"All of these things required us to spend money that we had not originally planned to spend, or weren't originally part of the budget," Cheney said. "Stuff happens. And the administration has to be able to respond to that, and we did."'
Cheney acts as though unforeseen circumstances are at the root of the problems. But he's been in high level government for years and knows that unforeseen events happen all the time.
The success of a government is dealing with problems and difficult circumstances thrown your way, changing your path to meet the needs. Clearly the Bush government failed in this. For starters Bush did not have to keep his tax cuts to the wealthy in place to respond to the crisis. But Bush and Cheney choose to do so for political gain, rather then make the hard decisions, which would have been more helpful for the country, but less popular to that small fraction of the population making more than $250,000 year.
If Cheney is blaming these unforeseen circumstances for the fact that he and Bush could not govern how they wanted, then I suppose we should be glad for those disasters. I shudder to think what other horrors Bush/Cheney would have wrought had they the chance.
There's always the possibility of Cheney/Palin 2012. He takes a year or two to do what he wants as prez and then turns the reins over to Palin.
Please don't jinx us with such statements! And Palin is just like Cheney temperamentally. She's not afraid to use the power of the office to get what she wants, including for personal gain (or retribution). So even if Cheney is out for good, there's always someone to take his place.
We need to be mindful of this when electing leaders.