Cheney Says Obama Is Worst President Ever

Former Vice President Dick Cheney tore into President Obama in a Playboy interview.

Said Cheney: “I look at Barack Obama and I see the worst president of my lifetime, without question. I used to have significant criticism of Jimmy Carter, but compared to Barack Obama and the damage he is doing to the nation — it’s a tragedy.”

He added: “The way Obama is functioning now, he’s crippling the capacity of future presidents to deal with future crises.”

FavoriteLoadingSave to Favorites
  • ElfInBklyn

    Obama should wear criticism from this shitstain as a badge of honor.

    • jpic

      It’s the economy War Criminal. Wonder who is gonna come out ahead? My guess it isn’t you Triggerman.

    • vidarien

      Go fuck yourself Cheney.

      Thats my reasoned, intellectual response.

  • APV

    Talk about projection!! This from someone who left office with 13% approval rating –

    • S1AMER

      You’re probably insulting head lice and cockroaches — they at least have hearts.

    • evave2

      Wait a minute: DICK had a 13% approval rating? I thought he was at least in the 20s.

      • APV

        GW Bush’s final approval rating in January 2009 in a CBS News/NY times poll was 22%. Dick Cheney was at 13%

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bushs-final-approval-rating-22-percent/

        • evave2

          Wow, and I bet he was PROUD of that 13%. (I remember Bush in the 20s so I thought Cheney was too.)

        • Vonduit

          Yeah…..but they both have better approval ratings than Oblamea now!!!!!!

  • Wynstone

    Stay classy, Dick!

  • S1AMER

    The ink and air time given to Cheney encapsulate everything’s that wrong with the national media today.

    • cemba99

      In my lifetime (born in ’57), I cannot recall any former president or vice president criticizing a current regime the way Cheney attacks Obama. Not Nixon, Ford, Quayle, Mondale, Carter, Clinton, Bush (X2), Gore, etc.

      Sure they may have had a few choice words about a certain policy or legislation, but they traditionally have left presidential attacks to those who are still hold elected office (Senate leaders, etc.) and who can actually do something about the disagreements.

      Although I am sure Cheney considers himself some sort of “senior statesman,” he comes off as a petty, vindictive, and frustrated old man.

      • Silent_Partner

        None of them left a mess for someone to clean up, and btw they have admirably, like he did. It’s rather embarrassing, for him and the press because none of them ever point out all the fuckups he spearheaded that President Obama has had to fix in the last 6+ years.

      • jf

        Good point. Let’s count the words Gore spoke attacking the GW Bush/Cheney Administration from 2001-2009. I can’t recall any.

        • Peter Tobias

          Well, Gore did criticize the attacks on civil liberties strongly.

      • spine

        This President has the wrong skin color. That’s unforgivable in Cheney/Republican mental country.

        • Vonduit

          And you my friend are an idiot! Skin Color has nothing to do with Cheney ‘ s criticism of Oblamea…….stop crying race it shows your ignorance!

      • Vonduit

        Are you nuts? Oblamea attacks the former administration every time he has a Chance!!!

    • VSamuels

      An excellent. point, and certainly. worth asking why Cheney would be asked to question a sitting President in view of his own presidential record.

    • Frank Manuele

      Tabloid at best! PlayBoy!!!?? He’s got to be kidding that anyone considers that rag the credible source it once was! Much rather look at the pictures than hear one more excuse of denial.

  • pisher

    “Envy. Envy. Hate. Envy. Diversion. Smokescreen. Pander. Hate. Envy.”

    😀

  • FreedomFries

    Cheney is our version of Baghdad Bob.

  • Chris Leatherman

    Dick Cheney is the worst president ever…and always will be.

    • evave2

      I did an upvote. But I want to add that I don’t KNOW that Bush wasn’t as bad. I think I personally give him a little bit of a pass (he was either substandard in intellect OR just too much of a party boy, liked “being the President” but didn’t like “doing the job.”

      So then I blame Cheney more than Bush for that horrible decade. But SHOULD I let Bush off the hook? Cheney played him like a fiddle in Admin1 and then Admin2 even BUSH could see it was all falling apart. BUT Bush still gave him all that power. See what I mean? BOTH of them were the worst President ever.

      • jpic

        SOB cut his teeth in Watergate, somehow evaded prison and became Stealth President when the SC installed George the Lesser.

      • heropsycho

        Even compare their most comical failures, and maybe it summarizes their roles.

        Bush: He accidentally choked on a pretzel. That contained a threat to him only, you know? It hints at some incompetency (chew your foot dammit! you gotta drink liquid when you’re eating pretzels, how do you not know that?!), but it’s mostly harmless to everyone else.

        Cheney: HE SHOT AN OLD MAN IN THE FACE!

        OK, I’ll promise to stop making jokes about Cheney shooting people in the face… this thread anyway… lol

  • Chris Jeffords

    This man has no sense of history ,truth, diplomacy, or our place in the world. Endless war is all he wants, he has prospered from it.

    • OtherTim

      You left out, “. . . or shame.”

  • jeremy tranor

    A comment like that is just insane. Obama has had to clean up Bushes mess for years. The economy is pretty good now and the world is screwed up in terms of foreign policy mainly because of Cheney himself. No matter hiw history judges Obama he will be way ahead of Cheney’s boss.

    • jpic

      Hm. The economy is back to where it was in 2000. Wonder who was pres. then? Hint, those visitors who can’t remember, it wasn’t George the Lesser.

      My business is booming. It wasn’t from 2009 to 12 thanks to Cheneybush.

    • Lynette Huffstedtler

      And light years ahead of Cheney himself.

    • Inkan1969

      There’s no substance to the comment. It’s just a cheap shot.

  • navamske

    Cheney Says Obama Is Worst President Ever

    Pot. Kettle. Cheney.

  • Philip Canfield

    Actually, I think Cheney was the worst president ever. 🙂

  • Whatever.. I guess there are no Sarah Palin word salads to post or new exciting Mavis Marketing polls to put up?

  • Samuel Stephens

    The irony is most Presidential rankings by historians place Bush Jr. close to the bottom of the list above only five or six other Presidents. It’s too early to tell how Obama will fare, but the current concensus would place him in the upper half of Presidents.

    • pisher

      Given what he’s had to work with, I’d put him in the top tenth. As far as the last century goes, I’d only rank FDR higher. And it should probably be mentioned that I was born the same year as him, but if he sucked, that would only make me hate him more. 😉

      • Samuel Stephens

        I wouldn’t rank Obama that highly. Wilson and Eisenhower were most certainly better Presidents.

        • It is too early to tell, but my guesstimate is how he handled the economic recession from 2009 onward will be looked upon as pretty brilliant… He still has a little less than 2 years left, and anything can happened..

        • pbrower2a

          Obama wanted to become the new FDR and ended up the new Eisenhower.

          • evave2

            I think you are right. I don’t think he’ll rank that high just because all he is doing is fending off “hideous” policies.

            So he may be good at the job, but he has been largely stalemated and we can’t just keep saying “he would’ve done more” because that sounds like “I coulda been a contender” and nobody cares.

            Of course the people doing the voting aren’t always the brightest lights either, you know?

        • TnkAgn

          Wilson? How so? Outside of women’s suffrage, Wilson’s achievements are rather puny. Mostly because of an obstinate Congress, but there it is.

          • Samuel Stephens

            Wilson’s accomplishments tend to be overlooked by today’s liberals (admittedly because of his racism). There’s the Federal Trade Commissions Act, Revenue Act of 1913, the Federal Reserve, keeping America out of a very nasty war for as long as he could, along with other lesser-known victories involving the expansion of labor rights and improving working conditions.

          • CB123

            And he was embarrassed into folding on women’s suffrage, which he initially opposed.

          • algionfriddo

            Wilson was racist and went to war to save US Bank loans. The Versailles Treaty was one of the main causes of WWII. The partitioning of the Middle East post WWI is something we still are at war over.

          • TnkAgn

            He was a racist. As were most white Americans then.
            As to the Treaty of Versailles, Wilson worked against it to no avail. He wanted “A Just Peace” through his “14 Points.” They were ignored by the other allies. And so far as I know, Wilson had little or nothing to do with the partition of the Middle East.

        • CB123

          Have to disagree with you on Wilson. Aside from continuing Teddy Roosevelt’s trust-busting program and creating the Federal Reserve — two things for which I concede he deserves great credit — I consider him the most overrated president of the 20th century. Why he is considered such a great statesman, I have no idea — he had virtually no influence on the peace process at Versailles, where the other Allied leaders essentially laughed him and his proposals out of the room, and the one thing he did get — the League of Nations — was ill-conceived and useless due to its structure. Then, when he got back home, he refused to make even common-sense compromises with the Senate on issues of national sovereignty, and as a result, he wasn’t even able to get his own country into the organization he dreamed up. On domestic issues, he was an out-and-out racist who reinstituted full-scale segregation in the federal government and hailed “The Birth of a Nation” as a great movie and “terribly true.” While racism was clearly much more open in his day than it is today, the historical record demonstrates that his actions as president constituted a step backward on race issues.

          Eisenhower wasn’t a bad president overall. I do have some quibbles with him on a couple of things, such as backing away from FDR and Truman’s “Good Neighbor Policy” and once again ramping up American interventionism considerably throughout the world. As part and parcel of that, he allowed the CIA way too much free rein and helped enable it to become too powerful. (Truman later said if he had known what the CIA would become, he would never have created it.) But Eisenhower also acted decisively in sending troops to Arkansas to enforce integration, for which he deserves tremendous credit, and he didn’t allow the military to continue dragging its feet on integration, either (despite what appears to have been his own personal misgivings about “social engineering”). He put an end to the last gasps of resistance by old-school military types who figured they could wait Truman out and then re-segregate. Ike said no and ordered them to stop stonewalling. Economically, times were good under Ike, although in fairness, the rest of the world was still rebuilding from World War II, and still had to buy a lot of their manufactured goods from us, so I suspect times would have been pretty good whoever was president. Best of all, he refused to cave into the conservative wing of his party and undo the New Deal, thereby delaying the start travesty for another 30 years. So, on the whole, I’d have to agree that Ike, overall, did well as president.

          If not for Vietnam, LBJ would have been (by far) the greatest president since FDR. And if not for Watergate, I’d actually have to rate Nixon pretty highly.

          • Kennedy did not suck, after all he beat Nixon. He did have some good moments and started some good programs himself,,,ah……….drat

          • heropsycho

            You do have to credit Wilson’s League of Nations at least in that it was the precursor to the UN. Granted, it was a failure, but without it and proving where it was poorly designed, we may never have gotten the UN.

            I’m kinda split a bit on Wilson honestly, but fair is fair.

          • CB123

            I’ll give him credit for the idea, but many presidents have had grand ideas. In fairness, some didn’t have any ideas at all (for example: the guy immediately before him and the two guys immediately after him; part of why Wilson has stood out is simply because Taft, Harding and Coolidge were so mediocre, and then Hoover — who in fairness at least had some ideas — was simply a poor leader who was overwhelmed by the inevitable consequences of the Harding and Coolidge policies.)

          • heropsycho

            Wilson is a tough one to gauge, most definitely.

            I don’t know if Hoover was necessarily a poor leader, and I don’t pin the Great Depression on Harding and Collidge policies predominantly, either, although they most certainly didn’t help.

            Gotta remember the Great Depression was just more of the cyclical crashes that were happening routinely, it’s just the US economy was so much bigger than it was in the previous crashes. We were still feeling our way with how to properly regulate capitalism to make it healthy. Take a look at the history of the Federal Reserve, and you quickly see there were massive changes to it in reaction to downturns right up to the Great Depression. We didn’t have established Keynesian principles to help us in the 20’s to avoid it.

            And about poor leaders… remember that FDR was overwhelmed with the Great Depression, too. It’s not like he came into office, and he immediately put us on a path to get out. There was a time where his administration could be best described as “literally just trying shit” to get out of it. It wasn’t until World War II happened that people considered the Great Depression over, and you can’t credit him necessarily for that to have happened.

            Don’t get me wrong, I think FDR was one of the best Presidents we had, and don’t think that can describe Hoover, Taft, Harding, or Collidge, but fair is fair.

          • CB123

            Harding, Coolidge and Congress refused to regulate the economy at all. The Depression (or at least a recession) may well have happened anyway, but I suspect the inattention of government had a lot to do with its magnitude.

            Fair and accurate points about FDR, but he did take concrete actions that created jobs and put people back to work.

          • heropsycho

            Sorta my point though… even if they believed in regulating the economy, economists were still figuring out how to do so effectively. I’m not disputing your point about them being against regulation, I just think it wouldn’t have mattered much even if they had been in favor of it.

            That’s also why I think FDR was largely ineffective in ending the depression until WWII. They just didn’t understand how much economic stimulation by the government it was going to take, and WWII effectively destroyed any inhibitions about such high levels of deficit spending because national self-preservation took over.

            That’s what kills me now honestly is that should have been a case study for how to deal with the crash before Obama came to office, but so many people don’t seem to understand massive deficit spending in the form of war funding ended the Great Depression, and the important point in that is not the fact it was spent on defense.

          • CB123

            FDR’s initial solution — massive public works projects — helped cut unemployment from 25 percent to 14 percent by 1936. But in 1937, FDR decided the economy was fine now and invoked austerity measures, which set everything back again.

          • heropsycho

            FDR didn’t decide the economy was fine. They felt they couldn’t singlehandedly employ Americans indefinitely, and feared they were going to plunge the US into bankruptcy if they kept going. That was the ongoing debate within the cabinet, even when the federal works projects were running. The instinct that you can’t deficit spend indefinitely was correct, it’s just they had absolutely no idea how much was too much.

            WWII however, we basically said “what sense is worrying about bankruptcy if we’re going to be eating sauerkraut!” and deficit spent obscenely to win the war, and figured we’d figure out someway to pay for it later when the war was over. Honestly, that’s kinda magical thinking if you think about it from a budgetary perspective, but it ended up working.

        • MYMY

          Wilson? No, never. The man had bad instincts and his insistence on entering the ridiculous first world war …

          • Samuel Stephens

            Wilson hardly insisted in going to war; quite the opposite actually. He decided to go to war under public pressure…and the little fact that Germany was engaging in acts of war against the country.

          • MYMY

            There was huge resistance to going to war: recall Jane Addams founder of Hull House–she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for leading strong protests against American entry into that war.

          • Samuel Stephens

            The sinking of the Lusitania greatly shifted public opinion about the war. Public opinion was generally not in favor of war before this incident and there was still a strong anti-war movement afterwords, but the common opinion at that point accepted military action as inevitable. Germany was at war with the US and something needed to be done. You can disagree with the specific objectives Wilson tried to achieve once he decided on war, but he can hardly be faulted for this decision.

            Obama, by comparison, is no dove himself. He has also taken some military action deemed by many to be unnecessary and is currently working putting (an albeit limited number of) troops into Iraq to combat ISIS even though they are largely a regional problem that could be easily combated by our allies in the region who’s military and safety we fund. And then there’s drones of course. A false equivalency to the scale of WWI perhaps, but it shows Obama isn’t a pacifist and would be willing to take on a larger war should America be directly threatened.

          • jhannon

            Going to war under public pressure is not exactly a mark of great leadership.

          • Samuel Stephens

            It wasn’t just public pressure. Germany was at war with the US

          • CB123

            That’s fair, to a point, but it is also true that the United States was secretly arming Britain and France. The Germans didn’t blow the Lusitania out of the water because they got a kick out of sinking passenger ships. It was later discovered to be carrying munitions, as the Germans suspected all along.

          • Samuel Stephens

            While the Lusitania was the turning point in how Americans thought about the war, it wasn’t the only influencing factor. The Germans had sunk about half a dozen other American merchant ships. There was also the Zimmerman Telegram. The telegram was more a preemptive measure anticipating America joining the war, but it didn’t help anything. The Germans, in general, were starting to look like the bad guys in what Americans initially thought of as a pointless and amoral war. They had committed atrocities in Belgium and were violating international law by terrorizing the ocean with unristricted U-boat warfare. Wilson, rightly or wrongly, couldn’t stand aside and watch these things happen. It was tough decision, one that wasn’t made lightly and certainly doesn’t compare to the poor rationales and false pretenses of the Iraq War

          • CB123

            All accurate points, but unrestricted submarine warfare and the proposed alliance with Mexico were reactions to the fact that America was already involving itself on the side of the Allies. The German government would have been smarter to have turned a blind eye, but it made a fundamental miscalculation: that the war would be over before U.S. forces could impact the outcome.

          • heropsycho

            And you’re also pretending WWI was this easy thing to deal with, which is insane. Why WWI even occurred is still one of the most widely debated historical topics in world history. I literally read an entire book for college that made like 15 different cases for why it happened.

            Extremely difficult, complex decision for us to enter into it. That’s one of those decisions I could understand staying out or going in.

          • heropsycho

            Dude, go look at when WWI started and when we entered it. WTF?!

          • MYMY

            We entered it in its final year. It was a horrendous and worthless war that set up the dreadful conditions that eventuated in WWII–and not just because of the vicious Treaty of Versailles.

            The way the German soldiers were characterized by the forces opposed to them–as unredeemed Huns with babies on their bayonets–permitted the German people not just to resent this essentially racist propaganda but to think it right to adopt it themselves, against those they scapegoated for losing the war…

          • heropsycho

            That’s all completely irrelevant to the statement that Wilson insisted on entering the war. If a 4 year war rages, and Wilson finally entered it in the last year, only after Germany declared war on the US, and public sentiment turned to favor of the war, and we didn’t even declare war against other Central Powers until later, you have a very odd definition of the word “insistence”.

            Before that, Wilson was explicitly and strictly neutral. He repeatedly sent envoys to both sides over and over and over again trying to broker a peace. When the Lusitania was sunk, killing 128 Americans in 1915, he STILL refused to get into the war.

            You know what else it took for the Wilson to get the US to get involved?

            Germany resuming unrestricted submarine warfare they previously stopped after the Lusitania
            Germany sank more US ships
            Germany attempting to get Mexico to join Germany in the Zimmermann Telegram, offering the US territories it got from Mexico in previous wars

            So by odd, I mean your definition of insistence is completely wrong. Wilson was reluctant to get involved. You’d have a better chance of arguing he was dragged into it kicking and screaming. Wilson may not have been one of the most stringent doves, but he was definitely one of them.

        • Eisenhower? In what way was he a better president? let alone “most certainly” better?

          • Samuel Stephens

            Eisenhower did so much that it’s kind of hard to know where to begin: the Interstate Highway System, NASA, DARPA, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, expansion of Social Security, nominating Earl Warren, fighting McCarthyism (though he admittedly wasn’t open about it), upholding New Deal policies against opposition, National Defense Education Act, desegregation, marginal tax rate, presided over America’s most prosperous era, and for being a very thoughtful and pragmatic leader. He is also highly ranked by historians consistently.

            If there was ever a sore point during his Presidency it was his foreign policy, particularly how he handled the CIA. Beyond that though, I don’t think anyone can argue that his Presidency wasn’t one of the most effective in American history.

        • Samuel Stephens

          It seems my comment about Eisenhower and Wilson being better Presidents than Obama (or what he has accomplished up to this point) has received some attention, so I should probably elaborate on this claim.

          A good deal of the criticisms here are aimed at these Presidents in relations to civil rights, namely Wilson’s moralism and racism in words and policy and Eisenhower’s personal views of desegragation. While these criticism are definetly stingers, I find modern day progressives focus too much on this aspect when examining their Presidencies, especially in light of what they have achieved. Wilson is the more difficult of the two to defend I will admit, but his achievements have been taken for granted in many respects.

          Obama has his acomplisments too to be sure, and hopefully will see more through if Congress ever works with him: net nuetrality, the ACA (though it’s fairly pedestrian), The Recovery and Reinvestment Act instead of austerity measures, his overall handling of the recession and deficit, a more reserved approach to foreign policy (though still gives the Middle East too much military attention), “Cuban Thaw,” and hopefully a solid outcome with Iranian negotiations and immigration reform. He’s definitely a good President, the best since Eisenhower IMO, and will probably rank very well.

          But I also think his achievements seem bigger to us because of our perspective of the present and recent history (the Bush years) and the current political climate. Eisenhower’s achievements were huge and would probably be impossible to recreate in today’s environment. Wilson had some pretty big accomplishments too and his presidency, like Obama’s, was challanged. Furthermore, Obama hasn’t addressed some of the larger problems in our country (infrastructure, income inequality) or hasn’t pursued solutions very actively or with any ambition.

        • jhannon

          Eisenhower: overthrow of democratically elected governments in Guatemala and Iran, for starters. CIA empowered and out of control. Think those actions have had consequences?

          • Samuel Stephens

            Eisenhower’s handling of of the CIA was one of his few blunders. Every President (yes, even Obama) has them. But there’s so much more he accomplished. You can’t just cherry pick all of the negatives. Very few Presidents were as ambitious and successful as Eisenhower.

          • CB123

            You make a very strong case.

          • heropsycho

            FDR Japanese internment camps is such an excellent counterpoint.

            Another one… how about LBJ as a complex presidency to grade. Yeah, he escalated Vietnam, but he was absolutely critical in getting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed.

          • heropsycho

            Every president will make some bad decisions, you have to keep that in mind. I think Bill Clinton was very good, but repeal of Glass Steagall, Somalia…

            You’re also presuming that for example, had we not overthrown the Iranian government, everything would have been rosy. You do need to keep in mind that those decisions must be taken in the context of the Cold War. I’m not necessarily supporting those decisions, but you also can’t assume that making a different choice could have negatively impacted the US in the Cold War, either with any certainty. The Cold War had potential to become a Armageddon type scenario. Remember Mutually Assured Destruction? That’s something Eisenhower and the other Cold War presidents had to grapple with, so it’s easy to throw stones at their decisions and just magically assume what you would have done differently would have definitely been a net positive.

            Those decisions don’t work that way. Most decisions that are hard to make have a plethora of pros and cons that you’re estimating the long term ramifications of, and the only thing you actually get to see the long term ramifications of are the decisions that ended up being made, not the discarded ones.

      • Micheal Planck

        #3. Right behind Washington and Lincoln. FDR got SS and Eisenhower got integration; Obama got ACA and ~DADT.

        • I would say that President Johnson got integration with the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. Eisenhower liked to play golf at Augusta National…

          • evave2

            Okojo: I agree about Eisenhower. Michael, Eisenhower enforced school desegregation, but he personally did not like the idea. He was a good manager and he knew HOW to follow the law. But he did not Cause or Push an integrated society.

            I’d rank Johnson higher.

          • Micheal Planck

            I was thinking of integration of the army, which to my mind was what drove all the later steps. Americans do love their military; being normalized in military service must always lead to normalization in public life.

            I agree Johnson rarely gets the credit he deserves, but in long-term impact, I think ACA is as a big a deal as SS, possibly even more so since it turns over to govt an aspect that had been provided by the private sector thus clearing the way for nationalization of all manner of industries (and destroying the entire philosophy of the Republican party!); and ~DADT will ultimately drive the normalization of gays.

            And on top of this, he did this all with massive handicaps: not just a degenerate Republican party that has become incompetent and the curse of voodoo economics which has infected the world, but also the whole being a black man in a society still in denial about its racism.

            So ya… I am still pitching for 3rd. 😀

          • evave2

            I thought it was Truman who ordered the integration of the military services. But maybe you mean that Eisenhower actually enforced that executive order?

          • Micheal Planck

            This is weird. I could swear I already replied to this.

            I meant Truman.

          • evave2

            Dick Cheney is driving us both MAD, MAD I TELLS YOU.

            Most of the time I tell myself I can’t say where any particular person’s soul is going; I can’t understand motivation or background or anything really about another human being. BUT I feel convinced in my own reason that because Dick Cheney and those who agreed with him (let’s remember EVERYBODY at the President’s Legal Department who said the US may not torture but John Woo said YES to torture) I think they are going to Hell. Isn’t that horrible of me? To say another human being has damned his soul? And it would not be enough to confess to God, he’d have to stand up in the community of nations and confess his sins for me to accept he COULD be forgiven. I know we as a people have done bad evil things in the past that we justified (say, stealing the Southwest from Mexico) in any of a number of ways. But THIS, THIS was the WORST thing I could ever imagine.

            OK, I WANT him to roast in Hell. And I can’t remember if there is another person I said or even thought that about. He is the Devil Incarnate. Rather than the Angels of our Better Natures, he convinced myriad people to TORTURE. Roast in Hell, Mr Vice President.

          • Sarah Smile

            Unhinged. A fine example of self-righteous indignation that exposes the hypocrisy of the “bleeding heart” mentality.

            Search me, oh God, and know my heart. Test me, and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me and lead me in the way everlasting. Psalm 139

          • evave2

            Sarah, I woke up this morning with some back pain so maybe I am taking this wrong: are you saying ‘I’m’ unhinged and suffering from self-righteous indignation or that “he” is.

            I admit my last paragraph WAS pretty unpleasant but I feel horrible that he led this country into torturing and feels GOOD about it and still ARGUES for it.

          • terjeanderson

            Judging from her political leanings in past posts, pretty sure that Sarah was calling you “unhinged” and defending Cheney….

            Best ignored is my suggestion.

          • evave2

            Thank you. I did not recognize the poster.

            This is the only topic I feel that way about. Practically ALL of the time I will say someone is wrong; but in this case, Cheney led us into actual evil. It made me feel awful that I could not convince people around me that putting Bush back into office in 2004 was BAD.

            I feel in some respects personally responsible for what we did.

            Laws never kept one person from beating up/killing another; but the laws can NEVER say it is ok to beat up/kill someone in order to enforce the law.

          • Lumpenproletariat

            “Best ignored is my suggestion.”

            Aw, Terje.

            It’s like you don’t want me to have any fun at all.

          • terjeanderson

            It was a suggestion, not an order…..

          • CB123

            I agree. Without military integration, I think it would have taken longer for subsequent steps on integration. Truman knew what he was doing.

            To Eisenhower’s credit, he did not overturn Truman’s executive order. There were a lot of high-ups in the military (especially the Army and, to a lesser extent, the Marines) who tried hard to drag their feet and wait Truman out. (Every time Truman rejected the Army’s integration plan, which was essentially a stalling tactic, the Army would make an inconsequential tweak and send it back to him to be rejected and tweaked again and again.) Ike put an end to that.

          • heropsycho

            Edit: should have read down further. About to say if someone didn’t mention he desegregated the military.. lol

          • evave2

            But it was Truman’s executive order; unfortunately he was out of office pretty closely in time. The actual “work” of desegregating the military was done by Eisenhower. And bless him for that.

          • heropsycho

            Remember, Eisenhower overruled WWII generals to desegregate units during the war. But to be fair, he didn’t do that as president.

          • E_Grise

            Much of the groundwork for that desegregation was done by FDR’s mandate after continual badgering by Eleanor. Thanks to her, the first black officers were appointed in the Army, and the first other-than-stewards among the enlisted in the Navy. And, of course, the Tuskegee Airmen.

            The official assessment of the capabilities of adult black males by the Armed Services at the outset of the war would have precluded their opportunity to prove themselves and break the stereotype. Eleanor, through FDR, changed that.

          • heropsycho

            Remember, Eisenhower did desegregate units during WWII as a military leader, overruling his generals in the process, which I think is what laid the foundation for Truman to issue the executive order, and then Eisenhower enforced as president.

            Admittedly, he wasn’t president when he did that, though, so fair enough.

          • terjeanderson

            The Executive Order was in 1948, Truman left office at the beginning of 1953. While there was certainly a lot that happened during Eisenhower’s term to finish the job, it was during the last 4 1/2 years of Truman’s Presidency most of the “work” took place. (Although the work went on well into the 1970s and 1980s….)

          • evave2

            I remember (and I am probably off here but it seems clear even if it’s a “wrong” memory) that Truman gave the order and then it was “slow walked” by the military. He said “do it” and they said “yes sir” and then did little or nothing to enforce the edict. Eisenhower came in and said “do it” and they said “yes sir” and he said “NOW” and they began to actually enforce it. So I know what everybody is saying here, it was more complicated. Come to think of it, Clinton, in his original idea for “gays in the Military” was using the example of Truman’s order, and sort of like Truman’s order, there was an organized backlash. I think I also believed that Truman said DO IT and it was done. But it really wasn’t.

            Terjeanderson, Truman had all sort of things going on in his administration. Of course everybody DOES. What i mean is that there was the “who lost China?” stuff pretty quickly and the military used the military preparedness charge to keep from desegregating. BUT I am hazy on lots of the details.

          • heropsycho

            You know Eisenhower desegregated the military, right?

            Oh, and remember Brown v. Board of Education? Remember Southern Resistance? Remind me again who bitchslapped them with US troops to desegregate the schools?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_National_Guard_and_the_integration_of_Central_High_School

            That’s what Eisenhower did. I’m not saying he was necessarily the best president for advancing racial equality, but he’s a damn good one.

          • Little Rock was one high school. Brown v. Board of Education was Supreme Court decision, (granted Earl Warren was a Eisenhower appointee)

            Could Eisenhower had done more on Integration? sure, he was also facing a Senate with only 1/3 of members blocking any Civil Rights Legislation, no matter how tame. (ie the Longest Filibuster by Strom Thurmond for the 1957 Civil Rights Bill, was already worked out as piecemeal beforehand)

            If anyone broke the back of the Senate Dixiecrats, and passed two of some of the most important legislation ever out of Congress, (1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act) it was the Johnson Administration..

            I consider Eisenhower as more neutral to mainly benign neglect on Civil Rights. He didn’t impede it..

          • heropsycho

            Dude, sending in the US Airborne and nationalizing their National Guard at Little Rock is a seminal moment in US history concerning desegregation. That’s like saying Rosa Parks only refused to give up a bus seat. It laid down that the federal government would enforce desegregation laws, even if it took military force to do so. It’s extremely significant.

            Civil Rights Act of 1957? Sure, it’s not the 1965 act, but it was still very important as well. Eisenhower’s version of the bill was actually stronger than the one that ended up passing.

            You may play down his importance in Civil Rights, but it’s a gross mischaracterization that he was neutral or benign on the issue.

          • heropsycho
          • My point is read the article..

            My other point is that what made the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probable, was breaking the Southern Dixiecrats’ filibuster power besides sidetracking one of their leaders and one of the most powerful Senators at the time, Richard Russell of Georgia..

          • heropsycho

            I read the article, but it doesn’t ever dispute that he used the military to enforce desegregation, pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through Congress, and enforced desegregation of the military that was an executive order of Truman’s, after Eisenhower himself was the first US military leader to integrate units during wartime.

            I’m not disputing even what you’re saying about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Dixiecrats. I’m saying the assertion he was neutral or benign on Civil Rights has no factual basis when I give you three historically significant examples where he was pro-Civil Rights.

          • General Eisenhower didn’t integrate his military units under his command.. Most African Americans who served in Europe in World War 2 were in segregated units, mainly in transport units, and made a large part of the Red Ball Express. General Marshall wasn’t exactly an integrationist, and he was Eisenhower’s boss, who could veto any move.

            The only political leader or military leader in the Roosevelt Administration that did make strides in Integration of the military was James Forrestal, as Secretary of the US Navy, after Frank Knox died in May 1944..

          • heropsycho

            Eisenhower allowed African American volunteers to fight in white units during the Battle of the Bulge, over the objections of other generals, because of troop shortages. That’s historical fact. I don’t know why you singled that specific point, because it’s the least significant of the accomplishments he made for Civil Rights, and he wasn’t even President

            But honestly, please tell me how he could possibly be neutral or benign, considering the Civil Rights Act of 1957, or sending troops in to enforce Brown v Board of Education, or continuing troop integrations when he was president when he didn’t have to.

          • I replied to one specific point, because it isn’t really true that Eisenhower integrated Army in the Europen Theatre of Operations..

            http://worldwar2history.info/Army/Jim-Crow.html

            President Eisenhower wasn’t a Jimmy Byrnes, who could had been President of the US, given he was a major contender for the VP spot in 1944. However President Eisenhower wasn’t a gallant Civil Rights trailblazer either. The Civil Rights Act of 1957, as much as it was the first leglislative bill to pass in 90 or so years, was a plan out compromise. What made the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so momentual, was it broke the Southern Filibuster power..

          • heropsycho

            Read #6.

            http://www.history.com/news/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-battle-of-the-bulge

            Also, funny you should mention that “compromise bill” that Eisenhower passed. You apparently didn’t read the article I posted earlier…

            “Yes, Johnson played a role, but hardly the one his advocates might
            imagine: Eisenhower and his attorney general, Herbert Brownell Jr.,
            first proposed strong legislation, and it was Johnson and his Southern
            cronies who weakened it beyond recognition.”

            Whoops…

        • Bonky

          I thought that Truman integrated the military during WW2.

          • terjeanderson

            Truman issued his Executive Order in 1948, 3 years after the end of the war.

            But it was definitely Truman, not Ike.

          • Micheal Planck

            How do you expect me to break into the ranks of political punditry if you’re going to hold me to dull, hard facts?!?

          • Bonky

            No wonder you can’t break into punditry if you’re worried about facts, punditry is all about shooting at the sky and when something falls, you claim credit.

        • CB123

          I’m as big an Obama supporter as anyone, but even with ACA, getting bin Laden and his various other accomplishments, it would be a real stretch to put him in the “great” category. His failure to recognize the depth of Republican intransigence (admittedly a failure that wasn’t exclusively his) was a huge Achilles heel. Obviously, FDR, Lincoln, Washington and Theodore Roosevelt are top four. I don’t think it would be unfair to suggest that Obama is above average and perhaps significantly, but he clearly doesn’t outrank any of the four I just named.

          • heropsycho

            I agree, I think I’d have since 1900 put Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK over him alone. He for me belongs somewhere with Clinton, George Bush, Sr., Truman. I think he’s been better than GHWB simply because the ACA was more ambitious than anything he did, although you gotta give credit to Bush for handling the first Iraq War about as well as you could ever hope anyone would. Massive international cooperation, got everything through the tough UN Security Council, paid for it budgetary wise, won it overwhelmingly, didn’t blow up the balance of power in the region… Grr, now I can’t decide…

            Clinton balanced the budget, which is a pretty amazing feat, but repeal of Glass Steagall is just hard to swallow now…

            Truman set the basic Cold War policy of containment, which is a pretty big deal, as it helped guide crises that could have resulted in thermonuclear destruction of the planet.

            Hard for me to sort them out…

          • CB123

            It wasn’t until many years after Truman left the presidency that people generally came to understand what a spectacular president he was, especially on the international stage. Our involvement in the Korean War, although it never rose to the level of public animosity the Vietnam did, was generally unpopular, and his firing of MacArthur — which was absolutely the right thing to do, and even a number of top military brass had been quietly and privately questioning what took him so long to do it — ruined him politically. But Truman set the policy that eventually culminated in the collapse of communism as a world force (and, at least temporarily, the collapse of Russian imperialism as well), while rebuilding Europe and Japan to be key American allies in the containment (and ultimate defeat) of communism. Truman also dramatically improved our relations with our Latin American neighbors, which had already been poisoned by a couple generations of U.S. meddling. Domestically, his executive order integrating the military DURING HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN was an astounding act of political courage (and/or political shrewdness, as the black vote was likely decisive in several big states he narrowly carried). Many of his advisers told him flat out that issuing the integration order would certainly cost him the election, but in the end, it only cost him four Southern states with 46 electoral votes (which went to Strom Thurmond). He more than made up for that by winning Illinois, Ohio and California, all of which he likely would have lost without the strong support of black voters. I would rate him perhaps the #3 president of the 20th century, behind the Roosevelts, with LBJ coming in fourth. (I’d have put him second if not for Vietnam.)

            Although I generally do not support what Reagan did as president, I have to concede that it’s not fair or accurate to dismiss him entirely. On foreign policy, he achieved great things with regards to the then-Soviet Union and the Cold War. And although I think his agenda was ultimately wrong on domestic policies, one cannot dispute his success in pushing it through. I’d have to rank him #5 in the 20th century, just in terms of how consequential he was.

          • heropsycho

            I do like Truman a lot actually. I just can’t bring myself to include him in with those others in the top tier.

            I’m looking more at benefits of their achievements and policies, coupled with anything that did damage, so because of Reagan’s economic policies that were far too short sighted, I can’t include him. I wouldn’t say he was a bad president, but you can definitely count me in the crowd that believes he is the most overrated president of all time aside from maybe Andrew Jackson.

    • mhandrh

      I have read similar projections from several sources.

  • alrudder

    Can I log on to this story at work. Probably wouldn’t anyway, a stupid line, from an irrelevant political dinosaur.

    • Jester A. Arthur

      You want to read a Playboy interview with some Dick who is famous for giving a headshot to a friend? Sure, why not?

  • jbinphilly

    I’m not sure what is more galling here – that Dick Cheney of all people is criticizing Obama, or that the media is playing up an interview in friggin Playboy.

    • andereandre

      That Playboy has lowered itself to do an interview with Cheney, that is really galling.

      • Patterman

        Well, Playboy is kind of all about dicks, isn’t it?

        • Lynette Huffstedtler

          Yes, but they usually stick to at least marginally useful ones.

    • DKDC

      People will have to say that they just buy it for the pornographic pictures, because admitting to reading the Cheney interview would be just too embarrassing.

      • bpai99

        Tip of the hat for the funniest post on this whole thread.

  • LordDart

    **yawn**

    Thank you, Dick…

    NEXT!

  • GatorLegal1

    Unemployment down to 5.2%…. Stock market still at near-record highs…. Gas and oil at near-record lows not seen since the crash… No new domestic terror attacks (except by Americans with guns)…. Budget deficit sliced….16.4 million more Americans with health insurance (myself included)….

    WOW, if that’s the “worst President ever”, Cheney needs to lay off the drugs and get checked for symptoms of stroke and Alzheimer’s. And I mean no disrespect to anyone else who suffers from those ailments either.

    • Wynstone

      I think the Boston bombing was a terror attack, but a lot were prevented as well.

      • evave2

        you’re so right; but I think many don’t count the Marathon Bombing as “terror” because it was “home-grown terror” and the Tsarnaev (am I spelling it right?) brothers are home- grown terrorists. Like Timothy McVeigh.

        • Wynstone

          They are Chechen immigrants who came to America as refugees in 2002.

          • evave2

            I do remember that, I remember pictures. But the younger brother looked like a little kid (I mean 5 or 6) to me. HE definitely looked totally Americanized. If any of this makes sense; I think we are used to thinking of grown-up student- types like the 9/11 bombers NOT people who really look like everybody else. So it IS terror but not from “abroad.”

          • Wynstone

            I don’t mean to argue with you about it, but the older brother did travel to Russia and met with radical elements there. Some other radicalization occurred through the internet from abroad.

          • evave2

            Wynstone, you are not arguing. Or I am not reading you as argumentative.
            That’s why I used the younger brother (I do/did remember that the older appeared to have been radicalized on trips to Chechnya — I think he was visiting family). I remember at the time of the arrest people who knew him saying he COULDN’T be a terrorist because he smoked pot.

            So terrorism, YES. But in the younger brother’s case, NOT “from overseas.” At least not the way it usually seemed to play out.

        • GatorLegal1

          I guess my point was that there was absolutely nothing Obama was going to be able to do to prevent the Boston bombing – no intel, no reports, nothing. George W. Bush on the other hand, may have prevented 9/11 had his staff taken the reports seriously, and to make matters worse, the illegal invasion or Iraq has cultivated a whole generation of Jihadists who want to punish America through terror acts and violence.

          • evave2

            THAT’S what I meant by “home-grown” — it was a conspiracy of two and there was no intelligence to sift (though the fact older brother was radicalized in his visits (two?) to Chechnya was known to authorities and he should have been under some surveillance.

          • Lynette Huffstedtler

            Thanks Gator, you said what I was going to & saved me the trouble.

          • Sarah Smile

            One cannot lay the entire blame for September 11 on GW when Clinton had ample opportunities to do away with Bin Ladin during his presidency but lacked the courage to do so.

            I’m not a George Bush fan by any means for the most part however, when the intelligence provided points to wwd’s in the hands of an aggressive dictator who is already using chemical weapons on his citizens in a terrorist-infested region, you have to make a decision. Albeit, I do agree In hindsight it was the wrong decision…but NOT because it supposedly ignited the jihadists. How can one objectively make such a claim when September 11 had already occurred… I would say the jihadists were already alive and well and determined to harm us in every way possible.

            Until we, as Americans, can discuss and debate what is best for our country without liberal or conservative bias, we can expect a greater divide in our government and society.

            George Bush made his mistakes and Barack Obama is making his fair share also. His naïveté is simply astounding and dangerous when it comes to foreign-policy and yet, liberals REFUSE to even entertain the thought that he is mucking it up in the Middle East.

            Whether we like it or not, we are a super-power in a crazy, unjust and brutal world where Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” applies. It would behoove the liberal minded to except the fact and stop pretending we are the Great Satan.

          • Lumpenproletariat

            “One cannot lay the entire blame…”

            “All right, you’ve covered your ass now.”

            “…but lacked the courage to do so.”

            Typically, when someone makes bold statements like that – at least, when they’re actually interested in convincing people, and not just enamored with the sound of their own voice – they provide evidence.

            So someone who would make the claim that Clinton had the chance to “do away with” Bin Laden (oi, but now is the time for euphemisms?) but didn’t, and, indeed, had “ample opportunities” to do so, they could…Cite some point in time when Clinton had the chance to “do away with” Bin Laden…But didn’t.

            Like, for example, you would bring up the proposed air strikes in Kandahar back in 1998. You could argue that that was an “ample opportunity.” In fact, please, feel free to do so – don’t let the fact that I’m making your argument for you better than you could dissuade you.

            Of course, you said ample oppotunities, so, you’d need to provide more examples. I won’t give you any, though, you’ve had enough freebies.

            Additionally, it might be relevant for me to cite examples of Bush having the chance to “do away with” Bin Laden, but not doing so. Because Bush’s policy on Bin Laden was inconsistent, to say the least.

            I could also cite an example of Obama having the chance to “do away with” Bin Laden…And then doing so.

            “…the intelligence provided points to wwd’s…”

            The manufactured intelligence, which isn’t a semantic point. A reasonable observer would note that Bush Jr. was looking for reasons to go after Saddam, BEFORE 9/11.

            They would also note: there were no WMDs.

            Which implies it was bad intelligence, maybe?.

            “…refuse to even entertain the thought that he is mucking it up in the Middle East.”

            Apparently you refuse to entertain the thought as well, seeing as how you aren’t actually constructing an argument to back it up.

            ” Until we, as Americans, can discuss and debate what is best for our country without liberal or conservative bias…”

            “It would behoove the liberal minded to except the fact and stop pretending we are the Great Satan.”

            Riiiight.

          • Sarah Smile

            Thanks so much for your assistance! I am a delight and you are too kind and generous, my friend.

            So we agree then that GW shares the blame for 9/11 with Clinton. See, we are getting somewhere!

            As far as, “covering my ass,” why, exactly, do I need to cover my ass when I’m simply stating a fact… Which you, yourself, confirmed?

            You are indeed better than I at making my point. I voted for Bush 2000 but not in 2004. As I said, I’m not a fan but you presume to label me as the enemy and dismiss my post as republican tripe with your “cover my ass” remark.

            Question: to be considered a reasonable observer, does one really have to agree with your conclusion that GW was looking for reasons to go after Saddam? I don’t know, that argument always ends up sounding so juvenile that I’m embarrassed for the one claiming it and actually incredulous that an otherwise intelligent person doesn’t realize how ludicrous he sounds when claiming the leader of the free world completely lost his mind and waged a war to supposedly even some score as if he’s on the playground in grade school! I simply don’t consider that reasonable at all.

            I’ve enjoyed the civil debate on this particular thread for the most part. Far more intelligent and educated people than myself sharing their knowledge and opinion is valuable and worthy of consideration. I just don’t enjoy the underlying hateful attitude for those who do not agree with their ideology. It is the epitome of hypocrisy. Like the person who wants dick Cheney to burn in hell for eternity for promoting torture of terrorists. Does that make sense to you? How does one justify his lust for someone to be “tortured FOR ALL ETERNITY” when torture itself is what they disagree with? Makes no sense to me.

            Good day:)

          • Lumpenproletariat

            “As far as, “covering my ass,” why, exactly, do I need to cover my ass…”

            Haha, OK, maybe I’m going a bit too fast. Let’s start over.

            The Bush administration claimed that “no one could have predicted” the attack on 9/11.

            This was, to use a term of art we like to use in the biz, a lie.

            Because the fact is, people someone could have predicted it. In fact, they did predict it – and tried to warn the Bush administration.

            To get to the cumulation of just SOME of the warnings they got, let’s go to W’s Texas ranch, where Bush was in the middle of one of the longest vacations in presidential history – after being President for a whoooole six months. For a full month, at the peak of the threat, Bush was completely and willfully out of touch.

            And we know it was the peak of the threat, ‘cuz guys like Richard Clarke had been running around “with their hair on fire” for MONTHs, trying to warn that al-Qaeda was about to unleash a monumental attack.

            And so, six months into these attempts to warn Bush, he FINALLY got a briefing, helpfully titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike US” presented to him by a CIA analysist.

            His response to the CIA analysist?

            “All right, you’ve covered your ass now.”

            “Which you, yourself, confirmed?”

            *sigh* No, that isn’t what happened. I encouraged you to make an argument substanting your original assertions with facts. I even gave you an example of an argument you COULD make. I didn’t say that if you put in this minimal amount of effort – actually backing up your claims – that I’d agree with it.

            “I’m not a fan but you presume to label me as the enemy and dismiss my post as republican tripe…”
            You’ll note that only one of us here keeps bringing up partisan identifications.

            And it ain’t me.
            “…your conclusion that GW was looking for reasons to go after Saddam…”

            Ah, so your confusion of facts with conclusions is a fundamental problem.

            Let’s go back to Clarke. On September 12, 2001, Bush pulled Clarke and several other aides aside and asked him to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks.

            That’s a fact. You’re free to reach whatever conclusion you want from it – you’re entitled to your own conclusions.

            But you’re NOT entitled to your own facts.

            “…waged a war to supposedly even some score as if he’s on the playground in grade school!”

            We could also argue his motivations for wanting to go after Saddam so badly, if you want.

            But the fact that he wanted to go after Saddam, badly, is pretty clear.

            “…for promoting torture of terrorists.”

            You should know that you reveal more than you probably think when you make comments like this, by the way.

            “How does someone justify his lust…”

            I find this appeal to morality rather bizarre coming from an admitted social darwinist, honestly.

    • Micheal Planck

      It all makes perfect sense if you just randomly replace words with the word “black”. For instance, “Obama is the blackest president ever.” Well that’s true!

      Seriously, this is how to speak Republican.

      • Sarah Smile

        And honestly, race baiting is as ugly as racism itself. There is genuine racism in our country and you are doing minorities no favors by crying racism where it doesn’t apply. It’s the trump card of a bigoted ideologue. Your arrogance in labeling Republicans as racists is intellectually lazy, self righteous, dishonest, unproductive, destructive and downright shameful.

        • Micheal Planck

          It might be all of those things, but it’s also true.

          Seriously, just try it. The next time a Republican says something makes damn sense at all, just replace one of the words with “black.” And suddenly the statement is at least coherent.

          As little as two years ago I was willing to concede that there were “other factors.” But I was wrong. Of course the Rs are completely fascist and would object to any democratic president; but beyond that is the simple fact that he is black and they are more racist than even they realized.

          White male privilege really only exists when it is unspoken and preferably unconscious. Seeing a black man in the White House makes that impossible; now WMP either has to disappear or be defended. And they chose defense.

          If you think I am wrong, simply go on to RedState or The American Thinker or any other comment thread where Republicans expect to only be heard by other Republicans. You won’t have to look for dog whistles; the racism will just leap off the page (and more tellingly, you won’t see a single commentator objecting to it).

  • growe

    That was nice of the Dick, Obama approval just went up three points again.
    Shouldn’t he be visiting his daughter’s new Senate office – oh, wait….
    It will be weird when Uncle Fester dies. A Democrat will be President, of course, partly thanks to him. They will say nice words and grant him a state funeral. And the crickets will be chirping when Bill Kristol and a couple FOX interns wander through….

  • bpai99

    I cannot think of a higher compliment for a president than to be called a failure by a law-breaking, torturing, lying warmonger who thinks nothing of the Constitution.

    Dick Cheney is a greater threat to American values and democratic ideals than any foreign enemy.

  • Zebediah

    So the President declines to prosecute you for the myriad crimes you committed in office and this is how you pay him back?

  • TracyS711

    “Certainly we haven’t given up—nor should we give up—the right to criticize an administration and public officials”

    Says the guy who used to tell us that criticizing President Bush was “providing aid and comfort to our enemies”.

    A truly disgusting, loathsome individual. This man is responsible for the one of the worst foreign policy disasters in the history of the United States – a fact that should preface ANY question he ever gets on the subject. But sadly, he’s still treated as if he’s some sort of “expert” instead of the truth, that he’s nothing more than war monger whose sole interest lies in perpetuating endless wars that line his pocket book.

  • mhandrh

    Cheney has brass balls to match his steel heart. The man who was the mastermind behind the worst administration – the war of lies — the collapse oft he economy — the reason the US was ridiculed and lost prestige around the world — the failure after failure — he thinks he can deflect the horrors of his tenure onto the president who is ending the war, bringing home troops, repaired the economy, and focused on domestic programs to help Americans, despite obstacles and deliberate sabotage from Cheney’s political party.
    Cheney is proof to me that there is no god. If there were, Cheney would not be here to make these totally unsubstantiated, unwarranted and outrageous claims.

  • oldhandatthis

    This is like Nixon’s big lie tactics, Cheney seems to think if he repeats the lie often enough people will believe him. I wonder how historians will rate Bush and Cheney, I think they may be the most reckless administration ever and that doesn’t bode well for other judgements.

  • Hagar32Grady

    Unka Dick..what a card !! Who would have thought he would be starting his comedy career at such a elderly age. President O’Bama (it is Saint Patty’s Day
    ) Certainly got the joke as we all did…….

  • growe

    Don’t get me wrong, I do hope Draft Dodgin’ Dick is around for Jan 2017 to watch President Rodham-Clinton put her slim cool hand on the inauguration Bible. Not that he will be invited of course, maybe the gay daughter will.

    Mr “worse than Agnew” is like Scrooge staring in horror at the grave, knowing exactly the legacy he left behind in this world. A smarter person would try to make amends.

    And even better, I want him to stare at the TV in horror watching ads and debates where his name comes up every 78 seconds as an example of the shitburger the GOP will stuff down your stupid throat if you are stupid enough to back the Do-Nothing Party.

    • mhandrh

      A “smarter” person would make amends. A person with a conscience would make amends. A person who had a soul would make amends. That was the message of Dickens’ Scrooge — which Cheney has decisively ignored.Cheney is a war profiteer who enjoys bloodshed of others, destruction, and he is smart enough to lie, steal, and commit any crime in order to get what he wants.
      Has there been any VP worse than Cheney? I don’t think Agnew’s conviction of accepting bribes approaches the worldwide chaos and destruction wrought at the hands of the dick.

      I love the vision of him staring at a TV as his name arises as an example of total incorrigible corruption, amorality, treason (Plame) and other generally shitty acts.

  • Vera

    What was Playboy thinking? Putting Cheney in their magazine will produce the least chubby inducing Playboy edition ever.

    • Lynette Huffstedtler

      But it may increase the need for artificial help, a la Viagra or Cialis. See- he’s continuously thinking of ways to boost profits- in this case those of the pharmaceutical industry.

  • tiredofit

    Yes, Obama should not have written that letter for 47 Republican Senators signed to the Iran.

  • growe

    One useful thing about Cheney (I couldn’t find any more) is that med students can use head shots of him to think about how one surgically removes a hemorrhoid.

  • TK_Texas

    If you are as deep in the tar patch as Cheney is, you see a lot of tar. I saw a quotation from Martin Luther King to the effect that hatred can’t solve hatred and fear can’t solve fear, darkness cannot cure darkness. Only love corrects hate, courage and trust solve fear, and light solves darkness. The Cheneys and Netanyahus of the world sell mistrust, hate, darkness and fear and call it security. There can be no peace without the effort to make peace, but these individuals promote fear and treat unstable low grade confrontations as stability and security, and without promoting solutions of their own, so mistrust and hatred for their own countrymen who are willing to put in the effort to make peace.

    • navamske

      light solves darkness

      In the beginning there was nothing. God said, “Let there be light!” Then there was still nothing, but you could see it.

    • mhandrh

      I agree with you, but who on this stage can countermand the hatred, fear, darkness coming from the ilkes of Cheney and his ilk? The seeds they have sown are in the fertile fields of RW owned media, and they are carefully tended every day.

    • Lynette Huffstedtler

      Well said.

  • Reagan’s Ghost

    What a waste of a heart transplant.

    • Hagar32Grady

      That hobo he had killed wasn’t needing it anymore …… Not like he was on O’Bama care 😉

  • jharp

    Mr. Cheney. After what you and George W. Bush did to our country could you at least have the decency of keeping your fucking mouth shut?

  • PorridgeGun

    The economy, stock market, auto industry, and Bin Laden say otherwise. Dick.
    Not to mention 16 million Americans who are now insured. Also, Obama managed to get arab nations to join the fight against ISIS, which military analysts and retired generals were gobsmacked (in a good way) about. While you’re at it, ask Putin how Russia is doing compared to the US. But of course, what he’s whining aboit is diplomacy with Iran, which Americans support by almost 70% in today’s poll.

    Cheney’s just pissed because Obama is steamrolling the GOP on executive actions and use of the veto pen, and his approval is comparable to Reagan at this point in his presidency.

  • rightwingrick

    Wow, thanks Dick (and I do mean dick). That may be the very BEST endorsement of the Obama presidency in my lifetime. If you think he’s really bad, he must be REALLY good.

  • mtnycz

    I am not sure what is more unbelievable / ballsy – the fact that Dick Cheney is calling someone the worst president ever or that he is using Playboy as the venue to do so.

    • nycguy

      Hugh Heiffner is a teatard.

      • Lynette Huffstedtler

        I wonder if Hefner realizes/is paying attention to what will happen to him, his fortune, & his ilk if the Christian Taliban, aka the Tea Party, actually get what they are gunning for, I.e. real power? Somehow I doubt it.

  • evave2

    And we should listen to this f***tard WHY?

    • easton

      because he is so dreamey and studley, I hope I am speling this alrite because i just had dame brainage surgerie.

      • evave2

        Take two aspirin with some fresh orange juice and get some sleep.

  • gmartini

    Coming from a member of an administration that invaded the wrong country, cut taxes on the rich with no plan to fund them, AND crashed our economy, that’s rich, DICK.

    The two of you clowns that ran our country into the ground are not even worthy of carrying around President Obama’s golf bag; you should be dressed in orange and behind bars—heartless ahole.

  • CAfan

    Dick Cheney is one of the worst humans ever….

    • Nishna

      What makes you think he’s human?

      • Lynette Huffstedtler

        Hahahahaha! Good one!

      • growe

        Proof that evolution exists and is not uniform in its progress.

  • Buford2k11

    Anything that comes out of this guys mouth is strait from the debil hisself…Dick, sold his soul for a little longer life, and now he is paying his debt back to “he who shall not be named”….I keep waiting for his head to spin around and spew pea soup out of his lying mouth…

  • eve

    Terrorist:
    a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
    a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon
    Dick Cheney:
    scumbag who infamously used political lies to frighten and terrorize a country into a war at the cost of many thousands of deaths

  • Lynda Groom

    Thats certainly rich coming from the worst VP in recent memory.

    • easton

      I dunno, Dan Quayle and Spiro T. Agnew were also VP’s (Republican of course). He was most evil but Quayle was the stupidest and Agnew the most venal.

  • Did TG just suggest Cheney has been alive since the 1700s?

    • Lynette Huffstedtler

      Doubtful. It would almost certainly be since the 1400s if anything.

  • nycguy

    16 million newly insured Americans say otherwise, asshole.

  • S-D-U-S-A

    Think he meant to say he was the worst VP ever.

  • TnkAgn

    To get some insight on the “dickness” that is Dick Cheney:
    http://www.salon.com/2013/11/14/dick_cheney_even_bigger_monster_than_you_thought/

    You have to wonder about the thoughts of the heart donor’s family.

  • Dave

    After having had a heart transplant, Dick now needs a brain transplant, too.

  • 66kicks

    As Dan Rowan used to say, “Say goodnight, Dick.”

  • We all know Cheney is an expert on incompetent, even illegal government. And he ought to know a “bad” president when he sees one, since he pulled the strings on the marionette Worst President Ever. And where’s that World Court indictment?

  • Uhhh, from the quote, Dick Cheney says Obama is the worst president in his lifetime. And unless Cheney is 240+ years old, that’s not quite the same thing as ever.

    Not defending Cheney. His transplanted heart is the best part of him. Just sayin’ though.

  • bsphil

    That’s funny because from what I recall, criticizing the commander in chief in a time of war is akin to treason.

    • Andersen

      Not based on what Hillary said, “criticizing the president is patriotic”

  • Blue387

    Jimmy Carter: “I’m off the hook!”

  • ryp

    I’d be far more concerned if Cheney had praise for Obama.

  • alansnipes

    Right, the administration you were in crashed the economy, lied about going to war creating the current mess in the Mideast, I could go on, but there are only so many hours in a day.

  • growe

    Meanwhile Cheney could only be President but pretending to be second to a dumbbell; I always wondered if Ford’s chief of staff had something on CIA head Poppy to make sure he was Sec Defense to daddy and then Veep to W. It certainly wasn’t on brains or electoral benefit. Really makes you wonder.

  • I’d like to make a wager with Cheney about how historians twenty years from now with the benefit of hindsight will rank the Bush/Cheney and Obama/Biden presidencies.

    • Andersen

      It all depends on how ‘historians’ rewrite history.

  • markms

    The Carter four years were actually pretty good compared to the Bush/Cheney eight years. During the Carter budget years (10/1/1977 to 9/30/1981), employment numbers increased from 99,453,000 to 108,924,000. For the Bush/Cheney years (10/2001 to 9/2009), employment numbers increased from 143,989,000 to 153,827,000.

    http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsdbtabs.htm

    The Carter years left the United States with no wars, several diplomatic successes (Egypt-Israel, Panama, China, Nuclear accord with the Soviet Union, the release of the hostages in Iran, etc.), and an improving economy after a six-month recession.

    The Bush/Cheney years left the United States with two unresolved wars that were kept off-budget, a huge budget deficit, and a near economic depression.

    The Obama years have not been what they should be, but considering all citizens have had to endure the result of the Republican manifesto of making sure nothing good would happen as long as Obama was president, things have still improved a lot.

    Digging the United States out from under the disaster of the Bush/Cheney years was what Obama inherited. Squandering the Clinton/Gore economy with its increasing annual budget surpluses is what Bush/Cheney inherited.

    • growe

      Amen. I kind of think 37 years of permanent peace between Egypt and Israel – established just 5 years after Egypt itself had tried to conquer Israel – all by itself accomplished more of value than eight years of Spriro Cheney & Puppet.

      • markms

        Eight years of Cheney and Puppet accomplished nothing of positive value at all.

        Who’s Spiro? Agnew?

  • citizenupset

    This has to be an onion article.

  • Ann_Elin

    Wow, coming from the biggest dick in the country – I’m sure President Obama has a total sad because of evil dick’s evil words.

  • coyote521

    If i were prez. Obama, i would rank this honor second only to the nobel prize

  • Silent_Partner

    No, everybody knows you were, Dick. That’s why you’re constantly out squawking on the topic while your puppet face for your administration remains quiet on the subject.

  • Lynette Huffstedtler

    “Obama the worst Presidet ever”, so says the AntiChrist himself. (massive eye roll)

    Given how much he has cost us in lives, global good will and standing, and economically, I’d say Tricky Dick Jr. is the worst President ever. I haven’t even addressed his bad points either.

  • LMK

    i mean this is literally a joke. the worst vp ever, a war criminal who is simultaneously a chickenshit who didn’t have the balls or the loyalty to serve his country when called upon. i mean there is nothing this scumbag could say that anyone decent should listen to.

  • MIchael G

    And we care and are giving ink and time and space to what this decrepit War Criminal thinks on this topic, or any topic … because??? Given his track record and the disastrous Administration he served, the economic destruction caused by him and his pals, the Neocon wars that got our fine young men and women killed for nothing, it’s rich for him to comment at all on who is best or worst in that regard. But really, who cares what someone with ZERO credibility thinks? Why on Earth would Playboy interview this scumbag traitor to our great nation?

  • Red Phillips

    Jeez, can you imagine what a ghastly insult it would be if Dick Cheney were to declare that he believed Obama was a GOOD president?

  • growe

    Spiro Cheney is nothing new. History is littered with douchey reactionaries who do not realize when they have become irrelevant and have nothing of use to offer.

  • rhallnj

    The horror of 5.5% unemployment, Dow 18,000, nobody coming home in body bags, 16 million with health insurance, falling deficits,…

  • Krusher

    Yeah? Well, I say Dick Cheney is the worst puppetmaster ever. He’s a vile sociopath with a chronic inability shut his gaping pie hole.

  • john rietheimer

    It is hard to say whether George W. Bush did a thousand things wrong or just one. Almost every single catastrophic failure can be directly traced to Cheney. Bush 9/11. Bushraq. Bushtrina. Bushpression. Attorney General Firing. Monica Goodling. Wanting to privatize SS. Hariet Meirs for Supreme Court. Heck of a Job Brownie. Missing WMD. Invading the wrong country. Not putting 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. Not getting Bin Laden. Mission Accomplished. Chalabi. Maliki. Karzai. Muqtada al Sadr. 10-20 nukes in N. Korea. Cheney-Rove-Libby-Plamegate. Cheney shooting people in face. Cheney wanting executive privilege on oil advice and then claiming he is not part of the executive when caught violating classified document restrictions imposed on him. Jack Abramoff. $20 million bribe so Halliburton could make tens of billions in no bid contracts and faulty blowout mechanism in Gulf oil rigs. Wiping e-mails from White House servers. 5 million missing White House e-mails on RNC servers. Extraordinary Rendition. Enhanced Interrogation. Elections of Hamas in Palestine and worst defeat in Israeli military history giving Hezbollah stronger role in Lebanon, all at US recommendation. Beginnings of Arab Spring (Condi Rice Birth Pangs of New Middle East) Terry Shiavo. Walter Reed Hospital. Millions veterans waiting years for disability. Oil production from 6 to 4 million a day (9.5 million under Obama). Stock market 14,000 to 6,000. $4.50 gasoline. Almost 10% unemployment. Amazing this list takes only a minute of two. The full list is just hard to fathom. Unless the full one should only list one mistake. Believing Dick Cheney when he recommended the only person qualified enough to be VP was a Dick. Or was he right about that? He is a Dick.

  • Cali Amina

    What a DICKHEAD! An advocate for the devil!

  • Me

    I agree with Cheney. I’m not a very political person, but I work, I went through college, and see what is happening in our society. I see Obama as someone who does not care at all for the American people. He cares only about illegals. He did not follow up with one thing he said during his election speeches, all lies. He is all gung-ho about 11 million people signing up for his Obamacare. Probably 90% of those 11 million were forced to buy it or have a percentage of their taxes taken from them like mine were this tax season. I look at Obama as someone who doesn’t care about America’s culture, ethics, language, or our Constitution. I am neither Dem or Rep, both are like the House of Cards. It’s all power, votes, and money, and the American people come last.

  • Pirini Scleroso

    *yawn* That is a bit like Jeffery Dahmer calling Martha Stewart a bad host.

  • Inkan1969

    I’m sure that what Playboy customers want to see the most when they open up an issue is Dick Cheney.

  • heropsycho

    As with anything Cheney says, everyone should remember that this comes from someone who shot an old man in the face because he thought he was a bird.

  • VSamuels

    Perhaps Cheney should be reminded he was in office during the greatest attack against this nation, and the perverse manner he subverted the CIA leading to the imprisonment of his top aide, Scotter Libby.

  • JustWondering

    The media should just ignore the hot air that spews from Cheney’s mouth.

  • woodt

    Satan still speaks.

  • Frank Manuele

    Oil was the only reason the US got militarily involved in the Middle
    East and the current reason the US is staying out; namely a new domestic supply and reduction in world demand. Cheney and the powers that were knew way back when Bush Sr. was C-in-Chief, that after Sadaam’s defeat there was no point in hanging around. The main reason that comes to mind is the Muslim culture that is not democratic in any country that holds religion above human rights, with strict penalties for violating the Koran or royal decrees, whichever comes first. All the Bush Jr. nonsense about liberty and pursuit of happiness was just a front for cheaper energy, political power and voter support.

    So now the hypocrisy of that administration has destroyed the trust of the many countries we relied on to support the first invasion of Iraq, resulting in Maliki, the poster child of that hypocrisy, alienating Sunnis that resulted in civil war and a power vacuum. Granted, Saddam and Assad were not nice people, but they knew about religious doctrine and dealt with it to keep order, knowing full well what would happen if they were removed. Uniting Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites, was never a priority, something Bush Jr and Cheney should have stipulated before agreeing to any withdrawal of forces. But then again it was never about democracy and freedom after the WMD’s seemed to disappear as if by magic.

    Strange that so many Neo-Conservatives ignored that simple reality and used 9/11 as an excuse to upset the balance of power eventually resulting in ISIS and the tragic loss of life that has been going on since the US first helped the Taliban fight Russia. Empowering bearded yahoos with modern weapons and the means to take on a much greater military power, swung around to bite us in the a$$. Putin and the Russian people must be smiling, thinking, ‘what goes around, comes around’. Cheney is a sad excuse of a man that did the most harm to his country in my life time, and I’m 66.

  • dectra

    Dick Cheney is the worst Human Being….EVER