Thursday, January 29, 2009

From Our Favorite Dick's Own Pie-hole (part Five)

Q So much of the debate on the war on terror,
(Well, not exactly debate – blather, rather; hand-wringing.)
particularly as Democrats
(Damned Dems…)
have encapsulated in Congress,
(to encapsulate: to epitomize, to express in brief summary. So WTF?)
is focused on the legality of the tactics.
(Legality – you say po-tay-to and I say ‘spud’.)
Could you talk a little bit behind the scenes
(Where you’re most comfortable – living on the ‘Dark Side’.)
of some of the discussions that might have focused on the morality and the ethics of the tactics,
(Not that you’d have even the most tenuous gasp of the concepts…)
and whether those things weighed into the discussions that went into --
(Oh, I’m getting lost in my own fractured syntax!)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: What kind -- which tactics?
(You better re-phrase that or I’ll have you head, you friggin’ mutt!)
Q Oh, anything from rendition to waterboarding to --
(Gawd, I hope he doesn’t snarl at me. I’ve heard he snarls!)
Q Sleep deprivation.
Q -- to deprivation, tactics that were used at Gitmo. Is there any -- I'm sure –
(Fake a weak chortle here.)
were there discussions that also focused just on American values
(Hay-rides, quilting parties, lemonade at the July Fourth picnic… We’re looking for a Norman Rockwell moment.)
and whether those can be preserved in the course of trying to protect the country from terror attacks?
(There, have we left you enough wiggle room to sufficiently dodge the question?)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, let me, before I respond to that,
(Since that’s why you’re paying me the honorarium.)
let me state a proposition.
(So as to side-track you and avoid actually giving an answer.)
It's very important to discriminate between different elements of -- or issues that are often at times conflated and all joined together and balled up.
(Like the following non-answer is obviously going to be.)
People take Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib
(with a double-dose of Pepto-Bismol)
and interrogation of high-value detainees
(a delightful euphemism; ‘high-value detainees’- sounds much better than prisoners)
and sort of throw that all together
(in a big naked goose-pile…)
and say, characterize it as torture policy.
(snort! Preposterous, what the simple-minded John and Jane Q Public come up with.)
You've got to, I think,
(I know it’ll be a strain for you two knuckle-draggers)
back off and recognize that something like Abu Ghraib was not policy.
(Even though there’s ample proof that it was policy, we’d prefer it wasn’t recognized as such.)
It was, in fact, uncovered and then exposed by the military.
(With the New York Times and 60 Minutes giving them a gentle assist.)
There were people involved in that activity who were not conducting themselves in accordance with the standards that we would have expected,
(The standards we expected were much lower and more brutal. Underwear on the head? Naked goose-piles!? Come on! That’s kid stuff. We were thinking more of bamboo-under-the-fingernails and electrodes-on-the-genitals - you know. School of the Americas techniques.)
and they've paid the price for it.
(And luckily – knock wood – those of us who made the executive decisions to flout international law haven’t.)
Guantanamo I believe has been a first-rate facility.
(As a symbol of the American iniquity and neo-conic depravity.)
It's one we absolutely needed and found essential.
(By ‘we’ of course I mean those in the Bush administration; it was essential for us to cover our asses for criminal activity.)
It's been primarily a military facility.
(Even you dorks probably know that. But did you know that it’s held in violation of treaty?)
If you're going to evaluate how it's functioned,
(And I strongly advise that you do NOT.)
the policy that we adhere to at Guantanamo basically is the U.S. Army Field Manual.
(Although most of what is done there is in direct violation of the Field Manual in regard to torture or detainment.)
With respect to high-value detainees and enhanced interrogation techniques,
(The euphemistic jargon is so vital to the proper functioning of propaganda. Don’t you think?)
totally separate proposition under the jurisdiction of the Central Intelligence Agency
(They had carte blanche with the blessing of John Yoo and Gonzo.)
and applied to only a few people who were individuals like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,
(a few hundred or so)
the mastermind of 9/11,
(Keep repeating that. It takes away some of the P.R. sting from the horrific things we authorized done to him.)
who we believe possessed significant intelligence about the enemy,
(Whoever we say that is on any given day.)
about al Qaeda,
(Which means ‘network’ and the title of a CIA databank used in recruiting Islamic extremists to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.)
about their future plans, about how they were organized and trained and equipped, where they operated.
(Since we were- ahem - totally in the dark (wink-wink) about all of this even though, as mentioned, the CIA ran and funded the Mujahidins in the jihad against the Soviets which became the al Qaeda network – if you’ll pardon the redundancy.)
And after 9/11, we badly needed to acquire good intelligence on the enemy.
(Since we had no good intelligence in Washington DC. None that we wanted to pay any attention to, anyway.)
That's an important part of fighting a war.
(So I’m told.)
What we did with respect to al Qaeda high-value detainees, if I can put it in those terms,
(And since that’s the standard party line we’ve been using for years, don’t even think of denying me.)
I think there were a total of about 33 who were subjected to enhanced interrogation;
(A magical term, isn’t it: enhanced interrogation. A good quick round of ’20 Questions’ followed by tea and cucumber sandwiches.)
only three of those who were subjected to waterboarding -- Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and a third, al Nashiri. That's it, those three guys.
(It’s not like we did to thousands or millions. So, since it was only those three guys –and we all know what nasty dudes those guys were (take our word for it) - international law and the US Constitution outlawing torture can be waived under those conditions. Right? Ask John Yoo.)
Was it torture?
(Of course it was. Oh, sorry. That was meant to be rhetorical, wasn’t it.)
I don't believe it was torture.
(“And what a fool believes… no wise man has the power to reason away”.)
We spent a great deal of time and effort getting legal advice,
(To cover our asses…)
legal opinion out of the Office of Legal Counsel, which is where you go for those kinds of opinions,
(Otherwise we’d have called it something different like the Office of Obfuscation or the Department of Dissemblance.)
from the Department of Justice as to where the red lines were out there in terms of this you can do, this you can't do.
(That’s how we asked them to lay it out for the Frat-boy Brush-cutter – color coded. He still couldn’t follow it. )
The CIA handled itself, I think, very appropriately.
(They were doing what they do best after all – torture and undermining democratic process.)
They came to us in the administration, talked to me, talked to others in the administration,
(Of course, they talked with me first since I’d summoned them to my office. Addington was there along with those other knuckle-heads – they always reminded me of those little toy dogs in the back windows of cars, their heads bobbing up and down, up and down… very gratifying.)
about what they felt they needed to do in order to obtain the intelligence that we believe these people were in possession of.
(Since, as I said, we had none of our own in DC.)
I signed off on it;
others did, as well, too. I wasn't the ultimate authority, obviously.
(George W Bush.)
As the Vice President, I don't run anything.
But I was in the loop.
(Hell, I WAS the loop.)
I thought that it was absolutely the right thing to do.
(Which goes to show I haven’t the foggiest notion anymore about what is right or wrong.)
I thought the legal opinions that were rendered were sound.
(Because we had lawyers write down what we wanted in legalese.)
I think the techniques were reasonable in terms of what they were asking to be able to do.
(Reasonable as far as criminal activity and in terms of what we demanded that the CIA do.)
And I think it produced the desired result.
(Although we got nothing as far as actionable intelligence as a result of our non-torture torture.)
I think it's directly responsible for the fact that we've been able to avoid or defeat further attacks against the homeland for seven and a half years.
(That and the fact that I’ve had interns continuously shredding newspapers in my office, lighting incense and ringing a little silver bell. Oh, and the monkey paw blessed by Alexander Haig that I wear under my shirt.)
And come to the question of morality and ethics, in my mind,
(Comes up blank…)
the foremost obligation we had from a moral or an ethical standpoint was to the oath of office we took when we were sworn in on January 20th of 2001,
(What was it again…?)
to protect and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
(Actually, it’s ‘protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic’ – not the neo-conic ideology.)
And that's what we've done.
More or less. Probably less than more.)
And I think it would have been unethical or immoral for us not to do everything we could in order to protect the nation against further attacks like what happened on 9/11.
(In hopes that we could somehow make up for the fact that we didn’t do diddley-squat – ethical, immoral or fattening – to stop those attacks in the first place despite multiple reports, memoranda and advisories warning us of imminent attack.)
We made the judgment, the President and I and others, that that wasn't going to happen again on our watch.
(Not again. Getting caught flat-footed with our pants down once was enough. Heh-heh.)
And I feel very good about what we did.
(And so do the stock-holders of Halliburton, etc)
I think it was the right thing to do.
(Whatever that means to you. It means shit to a tree.)
If I was faced with those circumstances again, I'd do exactly the same thing.
(Because I am that freaking stupid, insane or obstinate.)
To be continued...

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

We Interrupt this Interview... bring an important message:
The Bush/Cheney era is over. The wanna-be king and his 'Richelieu' are gone. Long live the Republic!

Saturday, January 17, 2009

The Annotated Cheney Interview (part 4)

For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
December 22, 2008
The Annotated Interview Vice President Richard Cheney by Jon Ward and John Solomon, The Washington Times
Vice President's West Wing Office

Q Sort of along those lines,(see part three of this interview) you've been a long-time fiscal conservative.
(Except of course when you’ve thrown money by the tractor-trailer load at the conflict in Iraq and the ill-suited, woefully mismanaged Coalition Provisional Authority (CPI) or whatever corporation, industry or project would best be served by tax-cuts and federal subsidies. )
How do you feel,
(The quintessential wishy-washy no-brain TV interview soft-ball)
what do you think about the markedly larger size of the government that this administration is leaving behind
(a huge hulking behemoth of bureaucracy worthy of Orwell or Stalin)
-- the size of the deficit,
(Ballooned past all control, past all conception, spiraling past fiscal irresponsibility into a macro-economic insanity; a mind-numbing level of deficit spending whereby you squandered the vast surplus that was the Clintonian legacy – the legacy of what you would call ‘tax and spend liberals’ – and mortgaged the future of the USA to the People’s Republic of China.)
from the financial commitments that the government now has to a lot of private industries?
(Not that so much has changed except for the fact that the ‘bail-outs’ are a lot more visible than the SOP of gratuitous subsidies, tax breaks given on silver platters to the corporate sponsors of election campaigns.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, given your druthers,
(That’s a ‘home-spun’ word I learned from the Brush-clearer-in-chief. Makes me sound kind of loveable, don’t you think? Like Wilford Brimley as the Grand Inquisitor.)
you'd rather not have a growing government in terms of spending,
(Growing in terms of executive power, sure. That was the center-piece of the plan.)
or in terms of authority over the economy.
(Not legislative control but executive control. As St Ronnie said, “The trouble is the government.” And so, we’ve always striven to dismantle and undermine the government of the Republic whenever and wherever we can. )
But there are exceptions.
(And you must admit we’ve been exceptional.)
And the exceptions historically have been wars.
(Luckily. Like the Frat-boy-in-Chief quipped, "We hit the Trifecta.")
We've been faced since 9/11 with a war,
(Of our own making and design.)
more than one in the sense that you count Iraq and Afghanistan separately.
(Assuming that you two goof-offs can count that high. It’s all the same ball of wax to me; defense contracts and bonuses from Halliburton.)
Defending the nation against further attacks from al Qaeda has been a preeminent concern of ours,
(Since we really dropped the ball on in 2001.)
and we've spent a lot of money doing that:
(Papering our asses with your hard-earned dollars)
creating the Department of Homeland Security,
(Which Clinton had in the works already to thwart terrorist attacks - we were too busy dismantling regulatory agencies and passing tax cuts for the rich to bother with until after the Towers fell. Lucky for us it was on the shelf, waiting for us to take credit for it.)
enhancing the security of our shipping container business and the airlines,
(It all comes back to taking care of business – Big Business, that is.)
and all of the other things we've done that have made us a safer nation.
(I feel safer knowing that firms like Halliburton, Blackwater, Bechtel and so on will be safe to profit from unending war as a result of the Muslim world hating our guts.)
And then when you talk about what we've had to do in Afghanistan and Iraq
(Which I trust you will not do but in glowing terms and with patriotic platitudes.)
of the commitment of troops,
(We commit the troops, when they get killed or wounded, the Taliban and Al Qaeda’s to blame.)
the cost of those wars,
(In dollars and cents – not inhuman lives. That’s of secondary concern to us, at best.)
those have all added to the burden.
(The rich, white-man’s burden.)
But I think it's better to do that than it would be to have ignored those needs and requirements,
(Q.E.D.: eo ipso – whatever we did was the right thing to do because doing nothing would have been the wrong thing.)
and seen us not respond the way that the President and I believed we needed to respond to those basic fundamental threats to our nation.
(Say, the EPA and the FCC running amuck with stifling regulation. How can anybody make a buck when you have to worry about wet-lands preservation or public commons. But I digress…)
I think
(So therefore, it's true.)
what al Qaeda represents is a strategic threat of considerable significance.
(Which we have greatly enhanced by the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.)
What happened on 9/11
(Even you dim-wits probably remember the official version of what happened.)
was you had 19 guys armed with airline tickets and box cutters
(Which explains why we need new fighter jets, bombers, nuclear subs, bunker-busters, tactical nukes and missile defense systems. How else do you expect to stop fanatics with box-cutters but by invading two countries that had little or nothing to do with the attacks?)
come into the country,
(where the CIA lost their trail and the FBI ignored them)
destroy 16 acres of downtown Manhattan,
(Prime real estate – figure in insurance pay-offs and re-sale; what a wind-fall!)
do major damage to the headquarters of our military over here at the Pentagon,
(Of course, if it actually had been a 737 the damage would have been truly horrific. Donnie’s office might have had to be redecorated. That’s why we decided to use the weaponized drone. Oops. I think I let one slip.)
and kill about 3,000 people.
(Give or take. Since no bodies were ever found at the Pennsylvania crash site or from ‘plane’ that hit the Pentagon, it’s hard to say.)
and If they had been armed or equipped with a deadly biological agent or a nuclear weapon,
(Or a zombie-making machine or a doomsday device like in ‘Dr Strangelove’ - I love that movie.)
we'd have a much larger problem than we did.
(Duh… )
So I fully support the spending we did because I think it was essential.
(Because it wasn’t my money and it was essential to the industries I serve.)
And it obviously has, as a byproduct,
(A byproduct of incompetency, failures in judgment and a willful and arrogant disregard of human life and rule of law.)
the fact that it increases the deficit and the overall size of government,
(etc, etc… blah, blah blah. How many times have I got to repeat myself? We did what we had to do to ram through our authoritarian agenda. Let’s move on.)
but I think this is one of those occasions like World War II when that was appropriate.
(Except of course that WWII was an actual declared war (i.e a declaration of war was passed by the House and Senate) in response to an attack on US colonial territory by a sovereign nation for the sake of territorial conquest; entirely unlike the Al Qaeda attacks. Not to mention the fact that after the cessation of hostilities, the surviving leaders of those Fascist states which had invaded various countries in Europe, Africa and Asia were brought to trial and executed as war criminals. Let’s be sure not to mention that.)
(to be continued)

Monday, January 12, 2009

Putting Words in Dick's Mouth - the annotated interview (part 3)
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
December 22, 2008
The Annotated Interview of almost former Vice President Richard Cheney by Jon Ward and John Solomon, The Washington Times
Vice President's West Wing Office –
(the one with the man-sized safe)
3:20 P.M. EST
December 17, 2008

Q: As a former CEO,

(Of Halliburton, one of the corporations which has profited enormously from the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan through ‘no-bid, cost-plus’ contracts.)
as you look out at the auto industry,
(Just over there beyond the amber fields of grain.)
an iconic industry of America
(What’s good for General Motors is good for America.)
that is struggling, so difficult,
(Can I get an ‘Amen’?)
if you were going to wave a magic wand,
(Here’s we go with the Neo-Cons’ magic wand, again.)
what would you recommend?
(Let’s pretend you’re getting stock options and $1 million in consulting fees?)

What needs to be done to change that industry?

(Besides expanding federal subsidies and possibly hiring you as a consultant.)

And also, can you give us some sense of what the Bush administration might still be able to do?
(While you guys still have it in your power to screw it up even more than it is.
And… Please don’t bring up any of that tired old clap-trap pipe-dreaming about promoting alternative fuels programs and blah, blah, blah.)

Will the loans really occur before you leave office?
(It’s not that I’m gullible enough to think I’ll get a straight answer to a straight question but my editor suggested it and your office approved it so…)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I can't tell you at this stage precisely what we're going to do,
(Actually I wouldn’t tell you bozos the right time of day if I could help it.)
because the President hasn't decided yet.
(keeping that little white lie alive…)
We're working on it,
(when it doesn’t interfere with lunch.)
and we had a session just yesterday on it,
(While the Frat Boy was clearing brush or whatever…)
looking at the options and so forth.
(It’s come down to just what my ‘cut’ will be of the ‘loan’. I don’t work cheap, you know.)
In terms of looking at the industry generally, I think that obviously it's a very, very important part of the global economy.
(Very, very, very important in that I own stock in that industry.)
I believe that there are a number of companies out there,
(And they know who they are…)
some of them operate in the United States,
(Even though most of their plants are outside the US…)
who are profitable,
(Because of huge, bloated Pentagon contracts)
who are producing products people want to buy.
(People other than the kleptocrats in the Pentagon. Of course, now I’m referring to Japanese and German auto companies.)
And increasingly, we're seeing in places like China and India, and so forth,
(Where there are lax labor laws and no unions…)
a steady increase in the demand for the production of automobiles.
(by US-based manufacturers eliminating the American worker from the equation)
I had a guy in here yesterday from China
(He fit in my man-sized safe beautifully.)
who was talking about the fact that they've quickly reached the point where they'll soon be producing almost 10 million cars a year.
(at least that’s what I thought he said. He was yammering on in Chinese but he wrote down some numbers for me.)
Then it won't be that far down the road
(Get it? I made a pun. And they say I don’t have a sense of humor…)
when China will be producing 20 million units a year
(That’s only 100% increase in production. Should be easy for those godless, Commie slave-drivers.)
-- this contrasted with good years here, we've been doing about 16 million.
(If only we had more godless slaver-driver of our own, our economy would be right as rain. Makes me nostalgic for the days when we could call in the Army to do some good, old-fashioned union busting.)
And so I think there are, apparently, just looking at it from a distance and not being a expert by any means in the automobile industry,
(In other words, I don’t have any more of a friggin’ clue than you nincompoops do.)
about that the American elements of General Motors, Chrysler, and I suppose to a lesser extent Ford, have encountered significant difficulties,
(They are coming with their hands full of ‘gimme’ and their mouths full of ‘much obliged’.)
I think for a number of reasons.
(They make cars nobody wants to buy, for a starter.)
But I'm told they are profitable in many places around the world,
(But I have no idea where that might be.)
but not profitable in the United States.
(Go figure...)
And then I think you've got to analyze
(I know that analysis is way above you pay grade, but I’m speaking figuratively here.)
-- if you're going to try to solve that problem, you've got to analyze why that might be,
(Pretty clever, right? In order to solve a problem, you have to understand what the problem is. I’m pretty sure I figured that out myself.)
and see what changes need to be made in order for those U.S. companies to become economically viable.
(Since they are ‘very, very important part of the global economy’ and all that. Or on the other hand, forget the analysis part of it and just throw huge wads of money at them willy-nilly, and ignore the fact that the industry is lead by avaricious incompetents who have driven their companies into bankruptcy.)

And we
(meaning ‘I’)
-- the President,
(that pampered wanna-be Marlboro-man…)
as he's made clear,
(by reading from the notes I’ve written for him)
doesn't want to see any more economic disorder added to the current problems we've got out there
(Which are nearly entirely due to our party’s own rampant de-regulation of industry and under-funding of over-sight boards and commissions.)
of both the financial crisis and being on the downside of the recession.
(We’ve been floating the concept of there being an ‘upside’ to a recession which we can claim credit for. We’re trying to spin this so that no matter what Obama does, the melt-down is all the Democrats fault.)
So he's looking at all the options.
(By which I mean, he’s screwing off as a lame duck until it’s not our problem anymore.)

(to be continued…)

Saturday, January 10, 2009

VPs Say the Darndest Things (part 2)
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
December 22, 2008

The Annotated Interview of almost former Vice President (and soon to be convicted felon if there is a speck of justice in the world) Richard Cheney by Jon Ward and John Solomon, The Washington Times (well-known brown-nosers and sycophants.)
Vice President's West Wing Office –

3:20 P.M. EST
December 17, 2008

Q You've been described
(By us...)
and attributed to be (sic) one of the most powerful and influential Vice Presidents in history.
(Mind if I gush?)
How would you describe your influence, your power, and your contribution to this administration?
(And please do feel free to be as candid and forthright, as brutally honest in your assessment as you wish. You really, deep down know that you and the ‘Frat Brat’ screwed the figurative pooch. Right!?)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: In terms of whether or not I'm the most powerful and influential,

(I’m glad you asked that question… precisely as Addington wrote it…)
I'll let somebody else make those judgments.
(Someone well-paid.)
I think
(Something I’m very good at if I do say so myself. And I do…)
-- I do believe
(I do. I do. I do. I do believe in pardons. I do. I do. I do. I do. I do. I do.)
that the vice presidency has been a consequential office, if I can put in those terms,
(And of course, I can; seeing as I got me a ‘consequential office’. And you young putzes aren’t about to contradict me for anything I say.)
in this administration.

But that's, first and foremost, because that's what the President wanted.
(Ever since I told the little screw-off that’s precisely what he wanted if he harbored having even a snowflake’s chance in hell of getting and keeping the White House. And still have time to clear brush and play golf.)
He's the one who asked me to take the job.
(Right after he hired me to find him a running mate. I told him that I was my first choice and his only choice if he wanted to do any brush-clearing.)
He's also the one who decided
(He is the decider, after all.)
during the course of his search process eight years ago
(When I told him to hire me. See penultimate annotation above.)
that he wanted somebody who could be another member of the team,
(Team Arbusto; the ‘A’ team.)
who had a certain set of experiences
(…which had lead to anti-social behavior, a loss of moral compass, frequent psychotic episodes of paranoia, an authoritarian mind-set, delusions of grandeur, megalomaniacal tendencies, rapacious greed…)
and so forth, and could be an active participant in the process.
(…of ruining nearly every aspect of the United States; its economy, its environment, its reputation, its institutions, its government, its political position in the world, …)

I know the job of vice president has been terribly frustrating for a lot of people.
(Especially those who felt consigned to a traditional role or one who felt the Constitution a constraint on their ability to grab power.)
Jerry Ford once told me it was the -- the worst nine months of his life were the years he lived, the months he spent -- it seemed like years -- but the months he spent as Vice President.
(Or something like that. Jerry wasn’t much of a story-teller. You get the idea.)

I watched Nelson Rockefeller in the Ford administration

(Not his best role, in my estimation.)
- - he was never happy with the post.
(4 shows a week for three years. Matinee on Saturday. That close to the Oval Office. It broke him.)

And everybody is familiar with the history that it has not been a consequential office in the past.

(Right? Dan Quayle ring any bells for you dim-wits?)
I think that began to change, I think in particular, during the Carter years.
(Blaming it on the Democrats is a tried and true spin to put on anything, don’t you know.)
I didn't agree with much of what Jimmy Carter did,
(Duh… )
but I thought Mondale as Vice President was a good choice for him,
(He sure was easy for Big Ron to thump in the election, that’s for sure.)
and that the office began to have a more significant role in those days.
(How, for example? Better PR? More press conferences? Bigger desk?)
And I think that's gradually grown over time.
(Like a cyst.)
And I think, as I say,
(and I will, and I do, as I have in the past, and will have done in the future, when history looks back at what I thought, and, as I say, I said, time and again.)
I do believe

(I do. I do. I do. I do believe in pardons. I do. I do. I do. I do. I do. I do.)
in this administration it's been a consequential post,
(More like a pillar than a post. A stanchion. A shaft, even.)
because that's what the President wanted to have happen,
(or at least so I told him every morning before the briefings.)
and he's been true to his word for eight years.
(Unless you count all that campaign guff about smaller government, personal privacy, lack of foreign entanglements, taking a more humble international role, lower taxes for the middle-class, other similar malarkey, he’s been true blue.)

(to be continued)

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

From Our Favorite Dick's Own Pie-hole
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
December 22, 2008

The Annotated Interview of almost former Vice President (and soon to be convicted felon if there is a speck of justice in the world) Richard Cheney by Jon Ward and John Solomon, The Washington Times (well-known brown-nosers and sycophants.)

Vice President's West Wing Office –
(the one with the man-sized safe)

3:20 P.M. EST
December 17, 2008
Q: Sir, let me ask one first,
(that is after all why I’m paying to be here…)
literally talking about your own public service
(pardon if I fawn),
seven presidencies.
(Seven? No wonder things are so screwed up!)
You left one presidency before where the President afterwards, Gerald Ford, became much more popular than he was when he left office.
(Say what? Try writing these questions down first.)
And I'm kind of curious,
(I’m purported to be a journalist, after all!)
as you look at this presidency ending now and where you are in popularity,
(the crapper…)
what you think will happen
(Besides the huge ‘Thank Gawd They’re Gone’ parties world-wide)—
how history might look back at this presidency
and President Bush compared to where he is now?
(deep in the crapper, kind of like my ability to formulate a proper question.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think there is a parallel in a sense with my experience during the Ford years in that President Ford made a decision that was extraordinarily unpopular at the time when he pardoned former President Nixon.
(But that ain’t nothing compared to Iraq, Afghanistan and the economic disaster we perpetrated, so forget parallels.)
He suffered from it,
and he dropped to about 30 points in the polls in one week, as I recall.
(About twice what I’m at now.)
By the time of his passing a couple of years ago, opinion had totally turned on that.
(So, I’m really looking forward to when I kick the bucket; my popularity should surge like crazy.)
In fact most people by then, even many who had been very critical 30 years before, were in agreement that, in fact, it was a good decision;
(Just don’t ask me to name names cuz I made that up)
it was the right thing to do from the standpoint of the country.
(Not THIS country, but we’re hoping that it works again, if you know what I mean.)
I don't want to compare the pardon to what we've been doing.
(Gawd, knows it’s apples to road-apples, but the pardon sounds good right now.)
It's just the fact of Presidents making tough decisions and how they are perceived contemporaneously
(good word, right?)
versus what they look like 20 or 30 years down the road.
(Fat, old, bloated, wrinkled and smelling of urine.)
And I myself am personally persuaded
(by I, myself)
that this President
and this administration
will look very good 20 or 30 years down the road,
(when it's really hit the fan and everything is commodified and owned by Halliburton)
in light of what we've been able to accomplish with respect to the global war on terror,
(I mean look how many more terrorists there are now! That’s an accomplishment.)
keeping the nation safe for the last seven and a half years against further attacks by al Qaeda,
(Too bad we missed that first one despite all the warnings but hey! Nobody bats 1.000, right?)
administering, I think, a very significant defeat to al Qaeda over the course of the last few years,
(and by defeat, I mean exponential growth and influence)
of liberating 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(Not counting the dead. Death is a very liberating experience, I’m told.)
I just –
I think the set of accomplishments there –
(meaning ‘absolute debacles that would shame anyone with a conscience or morals’.)
establishing democracies in both places with constitutions and free elections
(if by ‘democracy’, you mean puppet states with no choice at all.)
-- those are major, major kinds of changes in the course of history that I think this President deserves credit for.
(Or blame. Ranks right up there with Pol Pot and that Old Joe Stalin.)
And I think they'll be recognized as such in the future.
(And with luck, we’ll die before we’re brought before the International Court.)

(too be continued)