In Defense of Dick Cheney The man was a presidential aide, along with Donald Rumsfeld, under Richard Nixon. His formative years were of undoing the Democratic clusterfuck of LBJ and the media persecution of an entire party for Watergate. He was a senator during the first Gulf War - when the CIA told us there was nothing to worry about in Iraq. Who didn't know about the chemical weapons depot we accidentally blew up (causing Gulf War Syndrome) or this fucking thing. His "boss" was the son of the guy who, when he headed the CIA, totally missed the Iranian revolution. And, not to put too fine a point on it, couldn't run the goddamn Texas Rangers successfully. Dick Cheney is, believe it or not, Chaotic Good. I'm not a fan by any stretch but history will not judge him as weak. Misguided? Sure. Disrespectful of the constitution? Mos def. Keep in mind, though - far greater people than you have exposed him to snark and he's still Dick Goddamn Cheney. Me? I'd ask him his opinion about congressional investigation of the CIA. It might be interesting.
Snark certainly isn't my goal. I don't know how I gave off that impression so clearly in this thread to everyone. Of course I'd like to make him uncomfortable, but it won't happen. I really want interesting answers for the man. I believe he's done some of the worst harm to the country in it's history, but obviously he didn't do it out of malice, and despite hating him so much, I still have deep respect for the man and I'm completely in awe of what he's been capable of doing, in a similar way that I'm in awe of Putin and have to respect how goddamn good of a politician he is, despite being an absolutely dreadful, despotic villain. I'm leaning towards CIA or thenewgreen's suggestion of asking about yellow cake. The man's a complete enigma in a lot of ways, and I'm hoping now that he's out of the vice presidency he might be more candid than he would have been previously. In those "who would you have dinner with" conversations that occasionally come up, he's also in the top three for me because of how much history he's seen.
I don't know if you really did give off that impression. I think that people are expressing their emotional opinions of Dick Cheney through their suggestions of what to ask him. In other words instead of actually giving you questions to ask Dick Cheney to support your goal, they are giving you their opinions of him, often in scathing or satirical question form. It's interesting to see that happen. One wonders why.
An emotional response is often the easiest one, which is why it's seen so often. Also, in this case they were likely prompted (if obliquely) by Meriadoc's personal opinion of Dick Cheney. Additionally, Meriadoc hasn't provided any details on the context of why Cheney will be speaking there, who he will be speaking to, or why he will be answering questions. I think it would be helpful too, for Meriadoc to think about why he wants to ask questions and how he'll be able to capitalize on the answers. "What do you get on your hotdogs" might be an innocuous question in a vacuum, or to most people, but to certain people in the right contexts it could easily lead to a broader, much more interesting discussion. Memory often triggers emotional responses too. It's unlikely that it'll be that easy with this particular speaker, but researching a person is a good way to go before asking them questions.
Interesting. And me? There's nothing I'd ask the man. I feel I understand Dick Cheney which dissipates the anger... but not his responsibility to history. In those "who would you have dinner with" conversations that occasionally come up, he's also in the top three for me because of how much history he's seen.
this is not the sort of dialogue that is acceptable here. If you want to be coherent, and well-thought out (as well as well thought of in this community) and explain why you disagree with kb, then that's fine, but your "shit list" and your poor attitude towards discourse are not welcome here. Not that kleinbl00 needs me to go to bat for them.
true. I'll modify to be more correct. I spoke out of frustration.
Many of the world's true villains are heroes with a mutually exclusive worldview. Some despots, some are insane... but I totally get where Dick Cheney is coming from. When Nixon was a mentor, Halliburton is your company and the PNAC are your drinking buddies, you're going to have a radically different perspective on the way the world works. That perspective is fundamentally flawed, in my opinion, but it's consistent. That's why neoconservatism was so pernicious.
That's not entirely fair. Same guy that came up with it came up with this, and the basis for Gerald Bull's notions were entirely factual. These things were used to moderate effect in WWII and my own grandfather worked on this thing. The point was to threaten Israel. It worked; Israel felt threatened enough that they had him whacked outside his apartment. That's why it didn't get further, not technical challenges. When your chief scientist ends up ventilated on the street in Brussels you lose some steam. Dude really wanted to shoot a satellite into orbit and he'd do anything for anybody that gave him access to the toys. There's a lesson there.
According to the Wikipedia page (man, I do hate writing those words but I don't have the time to dig up better source), Bull was rubbed out for agreeing to improve the more practical aspects of the Iraqi missile delivery system- I.e. the re-entry vehicle for SCUD missiles- not the gun, which, by all the accounts I could find, was hilariously ineffective by any measurable standard. Baby babylon was "not considered a risk by Israel," and big babylon was useless as artillery. Seems like it was never tested as a space gun, as the prototype was poorly designed. And had it succeeded, it would have been useless as well, as its deployment method was easily monitored. How bonkers was this guy though, huh? Obsessed with shooting things into space with a big gun no matter what the cost. I'm sure there's a Cheap Freudian joke to be made here, but I'm not gonna be the one. Oops
Fair enough. My grasp of Israeli regional politics is shaky at best. Too fraught with unknown unknowns. Certainly not strong enough to make many points past gallows humor. Big-ass gun trained in your general direction is bound to raise eyebrows.