This is why Cheney was in the wheelchair: he sprained his hip doing a jig.
If he could stoop he wouldn’t have been in the chair.
Your voice. 
I don’t know and I don’t care. I’m hoping he loses every shred of relevance so that he can cause more trouble. I’m hoping eventually he realizes fully the harm he has caused. How he feels about that is up to him.
I hope there is a God to judge him properly after he dies. I don’t want to get all theological about this, but it is at least comforting to believe that there is some kind of basic eternal justice that will be meted out.
Failing that, let him be judged fairly by history and by earthly justice, let his wrongs be righted, and let him answer for the enormity of his legacy.
I wouldn’t waste your valuable time on him. He knows what he’s done and what he hasn’t.
That will be his comfort in the seconds before he dies.
Does the VP mansion show up on Google Earth once more?
Wow. I knew I might encounter any number of attitudes in this thread, but I was surprised at at least one.
In the abstract, of course, it’s wrong to assume that a person is lying without convincing evidence, and it’s even worse to impute base motives to him/her when more benign interpretations are possible. This ethic is a necessary part of the presumption of innocence, itself a cornerstone of democracy and liberal, civil society, which I endorse. But still it pains me to see the concept distorted in the service of evil, by honest liberals and conservatives out of misplaced zeal and by the rest for the sake of temporary advantage or convenience. Because, in the particular, it is not wrong to assume that liars lie, and it is not indecent to assume that demonstrated motives and proclivities influence the actions of their owner.
So here is Dick Cheney, a liar about matters large and small, public and private, a man whose principles constrain him to lie only after his first expedient - refusing to answer at all - fails. He lied and induced others to lie about the facts and their provenence that made the case for war in Iraq; he lied and induced others to lie in order to malign and discredit people like Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson who threatened the first set of lies, he lied and continues to lie about his financial connections to Halliburton, whose stock he, as a captain of industry, left in the (asbestos-lined) tank, but which, as a public servant, he managed to shovel billions of dollars into (using the fraudulent Iraq war as an excuse and through a no-bid process he also lied about), enriching himself by about 70 million bucks. He also did his share of lying about torture, energy policy, domestic spying, global warming and the Constitutional basis of the office of the Vice-Presidency itself. When he’s dead, he will do the only thing anyone expects – lie still.
Here is also Dick Cheney, a man whose respect for the office of the presidency should also be clear by now – treating his own chief as a puppet and the office as the means to private (and likely to remain so) ends, trying to invent an entirely separate sphere for a powerful and independent vice-president, and generally helping to drag the office, with the nation itself, deep into the opprobrium and obloquy of a mostly, in spite of him, civilized world. As for his respect for his political opponents, well, let’s let his comments on the Senate floor to Pat Leahy stand.
It would be wrong to assume, in the abstract, that a man would fake an injury to provide an excuse for not showing respect to an political opponent who had bested him. It’s not wrong, and least of all is it idiotic, to assume that this man lies, as is his habit, and that his motive is the same disrespect for his adversary and the office, and civil society as a whole, that he has already shown.
Especially considering that according to the photo linked up above he actually stood for the Oath of Office. And, last I checked, Cheney wasn’t running against Obama.
This is a pointless and wrongheaded pitting.
Especially wrong when the evidence apparently points to the contrary.
Evidence? Ha! Someone like Cheney can have all the “evidence” he needs manufactured in a heartbeat. You don’t know what you’re dealing with here… we’re through the looking glass, people!
Especially since with Cheney’s ticker, there’s about a week’s interval between beats.
You know who Cheney reminded me of when he rolled up in his wheelchair.?
A certain “warped, frustrated old man.”
Although, I do get a bit of a chuckle of thinking of Cheney and a few of his buddies, with a sofa on their shoulders, trudging it down the stairs of the Vice Presidential mansion …
“No … you have to … it needs to tilt or we’ll never get it out of here … no, to tilt to the left … Ow … my left you idiot … oh shit … something went in my back … fuck!”
photo (I’ll link to it, since you won’t)
Which I missed, along with apparently everyone else up 'til now, the first time around. To me, the photo looks equivocal as to whether Cheney is actually standing and as usual there’s no context or provenence for the offered evidence but it looks like a black man who looks like Mr. Obama from behind is embracing GWB in an outdoor winter setting and if I assume authenticity and accuracy (which is what led us all into a fraudulent, bloody, expensive war with these characters the last time we assumed an authority-friendly interpretation of ambiguous evidence, I’ll be wrong, but to say that
on the basis of the photo is obviously overreaching, even given the most generous interpretation, since hugging the former president is not part of the oath of office. In fact, there are a number of occasions upon which one is required by simple ettiquette to stand in the presence of the president, and managing one of them doesn’t absolve one of all the rest. I admit it’s possible that Cheney managed to stand often enough for forms’ sake and I just missed it every time, and that therefore he should be regarded as a most courteous slanderer, war criminal and profiteer. But I don’t think so, and the efforts to defend that reputation are to me hilarious.
To confuse “political opponent” with “opposing candidate in an election” is, I’m afraid, pointless and wrongheaded beyond my feeble attempts to satirize the course of this debate, as is Sarahfeena’s defense of the “evidence.”
Perhaps. But it’s that whole mandate to love everyone. Even repellent people.
I was actually taught by some lovely Wiccans to wish only the best for people, especially people you despise. The ‘best’ you wish on them might be something like “I wish my evil coworker was promoted and sent to a lovely job on the other side of the planet”. (Atheists! Instead of “God likes it when you think nice thoughts” insert "Hating people puts you in a shitty mood and spreads hate and nastiness to others. This is spreading entropy faster, thus hastening the heat death of the universe. Do not taunt Happy Fun Deity.)
So I wish for Mr. Cheney’s actions for both good and bad to be visited upon him.
That should do it.
And why was the first association I made even more offensive than the correct one? (blushing)
(thinking) Could an association be more offensive than the correct one? I suppose not, but the correct one is tempered by the whole “the OSS faked it” thing.
Dude, what the hell is wrong with you today? Is Cheney a douche? Of course.
Did he do something douchey yesterday? No.
I rather like that one.
Can’t be. Under Bush’s administration, a kid without insurance would never have got a wheelchair. Cheney must have got it from someone else.
He probably just shot the last owner in the face in a “hunting accident”.
Dude, it’s obvious what’s wrong with me today: I’m treating and judging important persons according to their past actions and treatment of others, and refusing to acknowledge, as they have, ambiguous and exculpatory evidence.
Cheney helped lie us into a war that he then manipulated into a magnificent transformation for his own personal fortune. He manufactured (or ordered the manufacture of) evidence, including photographic evidence, to accomplish this. He ain’t John Doe, and he ain’t entitled to the presumption of innocence ordinary people, those who haven’t repeatedly been proven to lie for their own benefit and to the detriment of the country and the world, get. And I choose not to give it to him. You are suddenly stirred because you think I may have done this man some injustice? Congratulations - you’ve exactly hit the mark, which unfortunately you painted on the wrong target.
According to Free Republic, Ted Kennedy’s seizure was punishment for Chappaquiddick.
Maybe Cheney’s is punishment for Gitmo?