Isn't That Nice? Cheney Takes Full Responsibility.

[Guest guest]

A

Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:11:45 -0600

Isn't That Nice? Cheney Takes " Full Responsibility. "

 

 

 

Isn't That Nice? Cheney Takes " Full Responsibility. "

 

Listening to Dick Cheney yesterday, in response to fully incurious

questioning from Bush apologist Brit Hume, take what he describes as

" full responsibility " for shooting Harry Whittington, my level of

disgust for this Cheney creature only rose further (difficult since I

had not previously thought it could become any more intense).

 

Dick Cheney is not just a bad politician, or a bad administrator, or

a bad government official. This is a genuinely bad man, truly

despicable, utterly corrupt in every way a man can be. He has no

morals, no ethics, no integrity, no honor. Indeed, he has the

negative of all of those qualities such that he effectively

counteracts any altruistic behavior or honorable inclinations on the

part of anyone within his sphere of influence.

 

The whole tone of Cheney's " apology, " if you want to glorify it as

such, was carefully crafted to give the impression that it wasn't

really his fault, you understand, but that he was courageously

standing up and bearing the brunt of guilt for this shooting. He

isn't sorry for what he's done except about the public fallout, which

his pseudo-mea culpa was designed solely to assuage.

 

What exactly do these administration officials actually mean when

they claim to take " full responsibility " for their failings? It

doesn't seem as if there are any consequences for their failures. I

mean, where's a good hara-kiri when you need it? Administration

officials who fail in their responsibilities, but yet who claim

responsibility, are retained in their positions or actually promoted,

and often given awards for the precise failings for which they are

responsible. There is NO responsibility, NO accountability, NO

personal ownership of any area of administration or any

action. Michael Chertoff is still on the job. Donald Rumsfeld

remains atop the Pentagon. The list goes on and on, and of course

Dick Cheney's still there.

 

Dick Cheney had no hunting license. Firing that gun, even if only at

a quail, was a crime. What if Harry Whittington dies? Is that not

manslaughter? Is manslaughter not a " high crime or

misdemeanor? " Was it not committed during the commission of a

crime? Does not that convert manslaughter into murder under our law?

 

And who were the other " hunting companions " along for the trip? It

seems that they were women, neither the wives of Mr. Cheney nor Mr.

Whittington. Rumor also has it that they were all drunk on their

asses. But of course Brit Hume has far too much consideration for

Mr. Cheney's political fortunes to ask such rude questions about

anything as potentially uncomfortable as that.

 

Rumor has it that their companions were Katherine Armstrong, whose

family owns the ranch on which the incident occurred, and Pamela

Willeford, the current U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland. Ms. Armstrong

said they'd had " one or two beers, " which is eerily reminiscent of

the most common answer given by a weaving driver to the policeman who

pulls him over for DWI, " I only had two beers, officer. "

 

I'd sure like to see what these guys would do if they faced the kind

of hostility from the press that Bill Clinton saw nearly every

day. But the press gives them a free pass. It's disgusting.

 

These guys are evil. They should be treated as such whenever they

poke their heads out from under the rocks.

 

Woody Smith

 

http://www.bareknuckles.org/bkp - Bare-Knuckles Politics,