Why America's Love Affair with Rule-Breaking Leaders Provided an Open Door for Trump

by Nomad

A recent poll revealed an interesting and somewhat disturbing trend in politics. When it comes to leadership, nearly half of the country would be happy with a president that breaks rules. And guess whose supporters overwhelming uphold that idea that rules and laws are for losers? 

Breaking Rules for the Greater Good

Yesterday, I stumbled across some interesting bit of information from one of the thousand of polls. 

According to a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, nearly half of Americans (45%) think that because things in the US have gone so far off the rails, the nation needs a leader who's willing to break some rules to put things in order. Slightly more than half of the respondents (51%) disagreed.  

If you think about it, it's really a frightening idea.

But what does it mean "to break the rules"? Does this mean voters think a leader must break laws too? Since laws are rules, that is the implication. And because the Constitution is the foundation of legal powers of the government, does it mean that half of the country would elect a leader that would violate the Constitution? 

And since the Supreme Court is the official final arbitrator of how the Constitution is applied, does this mean that 45% of the nation believes a president should listen to the high court decisions only when he agrees with it? Suddenly the entire question of the rule of law is called into question. All of our international treaties and nation-to-nation relationships are left to the whims of a leader who likes to shake things up and be "unpredictable." 

Meaningless Mea Culpa: All about Tony Blair's Dishonest Apology for the Iraq War

by Nomad

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair finally made an apology. To many, it was a startling admission. In fact, it was typical Blair, saying so much and yet saying nothing. He told CNN:

“I apologise for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong. I also apologise for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime.”

Sorry may be the hardest word but not for Tony Blair. That's what "whoops" sounds like in England I suppose. Still, we really need to look a little closer at Blair's barring of soul.  

Let's Compare Clinton's Phony Email "Scandal" and Dick Cheney's Fetish for Secrecy

by Nomad

After searching in vain since in March of last year, wasting time and spending millions, the Republican Party still expects to find something on about Hillary Clinton's emails. They've already admitted the investigation were politically-motivated.
Too bad these tireless and principled investigators were not around when Vice President Dick Cheney was fighting to keep his secrets classified.

Things have a dreadful habit of backfiring for the Republicans. The more they blustered about President Bill Clinton's adultery the higher his approval rating climbed. By and large, the public thought it was a case of too much about too too little. 

It seems like the party has learned absolutely nothing. Take the fruitless email investigation and the search for.. what are they searching for?. Does anybody remember?

We do know how it began.

Investigation Ad Nauseum

The Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee Investigation started out, as we all know, as a search for culpability in the deaths of State Department officials in the Benghazi attacks, which left four dead. 

After two agonizing years (filled with unsupported but damaging leaks to the press) the committee found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.  (Presumably, that would include the appointed Secretary of State.)

On the Benghazi investigation, more than $3,500,000 was thrown away. That figure exceeds the budget of the entire House Intelligence Committee. and does not include "significant expenditures made by the State Department and Defense Department to find and declassify material requested by the committee or the expense of witness travel for those who work for the government."

A miserable flop of a smear. So, what to do now, they asked? Why not a start a new investigation into Democratic candidate's use of a private email server? With the help of the media, the new so-called scandal investigation dragged on and on.

It didn't go smoothly. 

In October, false accusations by Chairman Trey Gowdy forced the CIA to step in with a rebuttal. 

Gowdy’s accusation was that Secretary Clinton had sent an email containing "some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.”

Totally untrue. No apology or clarification. The investigation pressed on as it does today. 

How much will be spent on this investigation is anybody's guess. It won't be cheap. As one source noted:

Rep. Gowdy now states the committee will continue its work into 2016 raising its cost to taxpayers to more than $6,000,000, casting his inaction as the result of the Obama administration’s slow pace at producing requested documents, a questionable premise.

Critics of the committee (and the numbers are growing) have called the investigation as nothing short of a taxpayer funded witch hunt of a leading presidential candidate. 

Supporters of the Republican-led investigations say Hillary must be guilty of something. However, many in the GOP seem to forget when it came to keeping secrets. nothing could surpass the overt duplicity of former vice-president Dick Cheney. 

Torture vs Medical Ethics: Should Doctors that Assisted in CIA interrogations be Held Accountable?

by Nomad

Dick Cheney recently claimed that controversial procedures applied to detainees were a medically necessity. Experts dispute this and call for a full investigation of possible ethics violation and crimes committed by contracted physicians. 

Cheney's Attempt at Damage Control

Recently, ex-vice president Dick Cheney appeared on MSNBC's "Meet the Press." Following the release of the Senate report on CIA detention and interrogation program. Cheney was in full damage control mode.
In spite of his attempt, it was pretty clear that the master manipulator's tricks had worn tissue thin. 

During the interview, Cheney repeatedly tried in vain to use 911 as an excuse for what went on behind prison walls. Nobody has ever argued that the detainees were nice people but without a trial, they were still innocent. Nobody has ever argued that the things done on September 11 2001 should be forgotten or that we must do everything- within the law- to stop attacks.
Nevertheless, Cheney's argument was that the ends justified the means, even when those means included torture (as defined by various international treaties that the US is a party to.)

All in all, even Cheney's supporters were embarrassed by what amounted to what can charitably called "misrepresentations." When asked about one of the more inexcusable techniques used by the CIA, namely "rectal feeding  and "rectal hydration"

Cheney claimed these procedures were done only as a medical necessity.  Michael Hayden, former CIA director recently used the same rebuttal to torture allegations.

The Experts Respond

Of course, the defense was ridiculous but it also opened the door for yet another problem for the CIA and its contracted physicians. 

Free and Downloadable: Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

by Nomad

As any techno-activist will tell you "information wants to be free." To honor that idea, I have made available the Senate's controversial report that has been creating some fearsome aftershocks since last Tuesday. 

One week ago, the Senate released its so-called CIA torture report. It strongly criticized the policy of "enhanced interrogations" for captured detainees and suspected terrorists. After a lengthy investigation, the summary alone came to over 500 pages. 

Showdown: Why the Truth on CIA Torture May Become Obama's Greatest Challenge

by Nomad

No nation is perfect. But one of the strengths that makes America exceptional is our willingness to openly confront our past, face our imperfections, make changes and do better. -- President Obama on the release of Senate Intelligence Committee's CIA use of enhanced interrogation techniques

This week, in the hallowed halls of Congress, a moan and a shudder could be heard when the Senate released its findings on the truly horrifying excesses of CIA interrogations used upon suspected terrorists following the 911 attacks. 

The Narrative Dissolves

A quick review of the 600-page executive summary of the report explained why Republicans had been doing all they could to block its release. From torture techniques that involved threats to suspect's children and forced enemas, ice water baths and threats to use drills as torture devices, to CIA lies about the successes, the report could hardly be more damaging to the Republican narrative. 

The New York Times has helpfully made a list of the most important findings:

• The C.I.A.’s interrogation techniques were more brutal and employed more extensively than the agency portrayed.
• The C.I.A. interrogation program was mismanaged and was not subject to adequate oversight.
• The C.I.A. misled members of Congress and the White House about the effectiveness and extent of its brutal interrogation techniques.
• Interrogators in the field who tried to stop the brutal techniques were repeatedly overruled by senior C.I.A. officials.
• The C.I.A. repeatedly under-reported the number of people it detained and subjected to harsh interrogation techniques under the program.
• At least 26 detainees were wrongfully held and did not meet the government’s standard for detention.
• The C.I.A. leaked classified information to journalists, exaggerating the success of interrogation methods in an effort to gain public support.

The Washington Post has also compiled a list of the most egregious acts found in report. Here are some of the items:

• Of the 119 CIA detainees, 26 should not have been apprehended.
• Abu Zubaida, the CIA's first detainee, spent 266 hours in a coffin-size confinement box.
• Of the at least 26 detainees who were wrongfully held, one was "intellectually challenged."
• CIA officers would "strip a detainee naked, shackle him in the standing position for up to 72 hours, and douse [him] repeatedly with cold water."

For the more cynical, the fact that the report was released at all is a bit of a shock. Certainly it is long overdue and could easily have been classified so utterly that the American public- at least this generation- would never have seen it. 

Its release also turns the tables on a lot of the Republican talking points about exposing the imaginary scandal of Benghazi. 

Fastening The Shackles: How the Militarization of the Police was Prophesied a Century Ago

by Nomad

Progressive reformers and anti-imperialists from a century ago warned us about what happens when a nation uses its military to establish an empire. Today, with the militarization of the police force around the country we are watching their warnings playing out right before our eyes.

Some effects are more predictable than others. If you do that, this will happen. That is also true for nations and societies. Take the militarization of the American police force.

Over a hundred years ago, high-minded progressives were warning that the nation which relies on military for its empire-building would suffer some drastic unintended consequences. It would, without any doubt, lead to the kind of police force that was counter to anybody's concept of liberty. Those chickens, as they say, would inevitably come home to roost.

In 1900, for instance, William Jennings Bryan espoused that view. In a speech on American imperialism, he said that when a nation freely violates the human rights of other nations it would be no time at all when it turns its lawlessness on its own people. 

Bryan said:

If there is poison in the blood of the hand it will ultimately reach the heart.

Scouring the archives, I found this stunning quote by the long-forgotten American reformer and author, Ernest Howard Crosby. Though his career as a reformer was short- only the last ten years of his life- he earned a fine reputation for his anti-militarist and anti-imperialist writings. 

(You can find Crosby's complete biography here.)

When he died of pneumonia in 1907, there was hardly a mention of his passing. That fact prompted the feminist, anarchist, atheist Emma Goldman to write:

Oh, if he had been a puller of strings in the murky business of politics, an unscrupulous bare-faced parvenu, a successful thief of the toil and sweat of the poor, the columns of the major newspapers of the lying money press would have been unanimous in their sing splendid paeans to his virtues..

They said nothing: no one seemed to have noticed that a great intellect and noble heart had been still forever.

Obama vs. The Cheneys: A Question of American Values

by Nomad

When President Obama admitted that the CIA had, in the years after 9/11, committed torture, Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice-president blasted the president, calling him an "utter disgrace." The interrogators, she said, were "patriots" and "heroes."

She failed to understand that the torture debate wasn't a matter of patriotism. It was a question of American values and what America stands for.

The Unseen Trap

In itself it was a fairly obvious thing to say. Last Friday, President Obama admitted that the CIA had committed torture. But what was surprising was his use of the pronoun "we." 

After handing over a report to Congress about an investigation into “enhanced interrogation techniques," President Obama said the CIA had “tortured some folks” after the Sept. 11 attacks.

“We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values.”

What gives? I wondered. Presumably he was referring to the CIA during the Bush administration. If he were attempting to show solidarity with the CIA then it seemed a politically dangerous and needless thing to say. Indeed, many headlines from the so-called liberally-biased media simply read "We tortured folks, says Obama."

Now it is clear what he was doing: It was a bait for conservatives.

In short order, Liz Cheney, daughter of the former Vice President Dick Cheney, erupted with indignation about Obama's remarks. The venue was, predictably enough, Sean Hannity's show on Fox News.  

Hyperbole, like you never saw.

"..This president is an utter disgrace. He’s got a situation where... you’ve got crises erupting around the world."

A classic non-sequitur and a distraction. Obama wasn't there to talk about the problems of the world and she knew it.  Cheney, (Liz , that is) went on to say:

“And he is expending more time, more energy, more passion, more aggressive activity in targeting and going after patriots, heroes. CIA officers and others who kept is safe after 9/11."

Of course, Cheney's explosive rhetoric is aimed at dividing Americans, a lame attempt to stoke fears one more time. The Cheney apples do not fall far from the tree.

Additionally, there is a very real question about the accuracy of her allegation. Did torture actually keep anybody safe, either in the short or long term?

That's a statement that requires Cheney to prove and she is clearly not willing to attempt it. However, the unreleased U.S. Senate report, according to one source, is purported to conclude that the CIA’s use of harsh interrogation techniques following 9/11 attacks was ineffective and yielded no critical intelligence. 

That's bad news for the Cheney family.

Actually, President Obama never said that enhanced interrogation didn't save lives. He said only that these techniques were contrary to our values. Perhaps the moral question -which is what the president was referring to- is simply not something a daughter of Mr. Dick Cheney could possibly grasp.

Not in a million years.

And that is the trap that Obama set and the one into which Liz Cheney - clearly speaking in defense of her father's policies- unwittingly tumbled. It is a question of values, a question whether the ends justify the means. 

Just because we can find a rationale for doing it and a legal means to escape second-guessing, does it make it right? 

Calls for Tony Blair's Resignation as ME Envoy: The Unraveling of a War-Mongerer?

by Nomad

Calls for Tony Blair's resignation as Middle East envoy have come from former ambassadors and politicians.
They have cited his prominent role in the Iraq invasion and his failure to accept responsibility for the mess.
Have events in Iraq finally caught up with former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair? Don't bet on it.

For his role as head cheerleader of the Iraq invasion, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has lately come under fire. In an open letter, former British ambassadors and politicians have called on Blair to step down from his position as Middle East envoy  on behalf of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU. 

The scathing letter was addressed to foreign ministers in the US, Russia and the EU as well as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Blair took up the envoy post immediately after resigning as PM on 27 June 2007. Our source reports:

The letter, with signatories including his former ambassador to Iran Sir Richard Dalton and former London Mayor Ken Livingstone – comes weeks after he published an essay in which he claimed that the 2003 invasion was not to blame for the current crisis.

The letter also points out how little Blair has achieved in his position.

With the existential threat to the Iraq democracy project posed by the Islamic militant group ISIS, the authors of the letter have accused Blair of trying to "absolve himself" of his responsibility for the present crisis in the war-torn nation.

“We believe that Mr Blair, as a vociferous advocate of the invasion, must accept a degree of responsibility for its consequences.”

(This might also explain why Dick Cheney has been working so hard recently at passing the buck on the Iraqi "liberation debacle" on to Obama.)

In the past, critics of his actions, including Bishop Desmond Tutu, Harold Pinter and Arundhati Roy have all called for Blair to face a trial at the International Criminal Court. Unsurprisingly, nothing has come of it.

Even if Blair has the integrity to step down- which is doubtful- one needn't worry that he will be facing the misery of standing in the unemployment line. Apart from his gig as an envoy, Blair has other things to keep him busy. His life has been stuffed with lucrative opportunities since dropping out of politics.

Cheney's Editorial: A Total Detachment from Responsibility and Reality

by Nomad

Minds were boggled this week as ex-vice president Dick Cheney managed to flip history on its head in order to escape his record in advocating the invasion of Iraq. 

In yet another example of Republican delusional thinking, former vice-president Dick Cheney penned an op-ed for the (Rupert Murdoch-owned) The Wall Street Journal this week, blasting President Obama on  foreign policy. 

Specifically he accused the president of "'fantasy' policies that weaken the US armed forces, embolden terror networks like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and reduce Washington's ability to influence global events."

It was a startling piece of writing, given the source. For a full appreciation of the text, an experienced mental health expert is perhaps required. Psychological projection is evident throughout and frankly, it's a little frightening to see how detached from reality the man has become.
(If Liz Cheney truly loved her father, she would keep as far  from access to the media as she could. Even Nancy Reagan had the common decency to do that for her husband.)

Before PRISM: The Curious History of the US World-Wide Surveillance Network- Part One

by Nomad
Recently many people seemed altogether mortified, shocked and angry when whistle-blower Edward Snowden, former contract employee of the National Security Agency (NSA) supplied both the Washington Post and The Guardian details about two top- secret surveillance operations.

The Snowden evidence describes one operation which was an effort to collect data from Verizon about millions of phone calls. The other operation was called PRISM. In that operation, metadata was harvested from millions of Internet sites. Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple were all apparently involved in the PRISM operation. 

Although both programs seem to have been overseen by Congress and a top-secret court, the extent of the operations came as a shock to a lot of people. 

One source describes PRISM like this:

“Its establishment in 2007 and six years of exponential growth took place beneath the surface of a roiling debate over the boundaries of surveillance and privacy.”

What PRISM does is to allow the NSA and the FBI to tap directly “into the central servers of nine leading U.S.Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time.”

Who, the reporters and public asked, could have imagined that the United States government- for whatever reason- would engage in such violations of personal privacy? Conservative voters feel as though their worst fears about Big Government and about Barack Obama have been confirmed. Many stunned liberals are asking:Why would President Obama launch such an attack on our freedoms?

Perhaps the only truly shocking aspect of the recent whistle-blowing revelations is the fact that anybody should be shocked at all. People who have been paying attention should have known the extent of this type of surveillance.

Perhaps the only truly shocking aspect of the recent whistle-blowing revelations is the fact that anybody should be shocked at all. Everybody -those who were not sleeping-  should have known the extent of this type of surveillance. 

Much- but naturally not all- of the information about these operations had been made public a long ago. The American people (at those who were awake) were warned and chose to ignore the challenge to their civil liberties.. until now. 

The present anger – much of it unfairly directed at the Obama administration- comes a little late in the day. The evidence of these (and even more extensive and intrusive) electronic spying operations has been right under everybody's noses for over a decade. As we shall see in this report it is especially disingenuous for Republicans to bluster now.

The problem of the government’s covert spying on its own citizens began long before Obama, before Bush, Reagan or even before Nixon.

Secrecy and Disclosure: Cheney Offers Romney Free Advice

As vice-president, Dick Cheney's most effective tool was always stealth. Listen the unsolicited advice he has given candidate Mitt Romney about disclosure. Of course, the question is whether Cheney's advice can actually win elections or hide evidence?

I have recently come to the conclusion that the Republican Party is now living in a world where rewards and punishment, shame and honor, have been turned upside down and made completely irrelevant.

The very people that should be hanging their head in utter shame, that should be wear identity-hiding beards and dark glasses or living in total seclusion in a backwoods cabin in Montana are now held up as experts or authorities.

Republican failures are constantly being interviewed and asked their opinions. Why would any intelligent person care?

So when I read about former vice president Dick Cheney giving his “valuable” advice to the presumptive nominee for the Republican party, Mitt Romney, I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised. After all, the conservative media reveres people like Cheney and think, despite the historical record, their opinions are extremely important.

Amazing: Will Americans Actually Give Republicans Another Chance in the 2012 Election?

Mitt George Romney Bush

by Nomad

If you think about it, it's pretty astounding that, after eight years of George W. Bush, anybody in their right minds would even consider voting for another Republican party candidate. 

It must say something about the ability of the American people to forgive- or maybe, just to forget. It has to say something about the character of a nation that they would be willing to trust the same party with the reins of power again in this decade. 

Remember when we were all prepared to impeach Bill Clinton for hanky-panky in the Oval Office while the rest of the world scratched its head and wondered? The GOP talked like it was the end of the world. 

It's really beyond belief that we used to think THAT was as low as a president could fall.  

Yes, it takes your breath away. Especially given the fact that nobody in the Republican party- as far as I recall- ever said they were sorry about: 

• the unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq, 
• falsely representing Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States, 
• mishandling of the disaster relief after Hurricane Katrina, 
• the failure to respond to prior intelligence and 
•  fumbling of the 911 investigation, 
• the disastrous tax cuts which drove the economy into the ditch, 
• the Patriot Act and the desecration of civil liberties, 
• the outing of a CIA agent purely for political gain
• "kidnapping" and detention of foreign nationals without trial, 
• the use and legitimizing of torture, 
• the illegal spying on American citizens 

Perhaps I was sleeping but I don't remember hearing anybody apologize for 

• awarding no-bid contracts in the rebuilding of Iraq,
• allowing Halliburton and friends to overcharge the government, 
• Failing to provide adequate protection for contract workers in Iraq  
• or failing to provide troops with body armor, 
• falsifying US troop deaths and injuries
• the national shame of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal
• the murder of untold Iraq and Afghan civilians who had simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time, 
• lying to the American people and 
• disgracing the image of the United States around the world.

And yet, after eight years of George W. Bush- who somehow feels confident enough to endorse Mitt Romney and peddle his self-serving memoirs, still to this day walks amongst the people as a free man. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld clearly have no fear that they might be someday held accountable. 

Another stunning thing? it's not as though Mitt Romney is a breath of fresh air from the pollution of the Bush years. The same people who got Bush into the White House are behind Romney. Karl Rove's group, American CrossRoads, has recently put out an attack ad on the president, filled with lies and distortions. That's right, Karl (Bush's Brain) Rove. 

And there will, no doubt, be a lot of people who will come back to and vote for the same party and vote for the same people with different faces and different names. 
Other than that, nothing has changed about the Republican party. Only, perhaps, their use of hate and lies to divide the nation may be a bit less restrained.

Even now, there are die-hard Republicans who have the arrogance to proclaim President Obama as "the worst president since Carter." They seem to be serious when they say it but how they can forget the years from 2000 to 2008 so easily is really something that defies explanation.

It's pretty amazing, I tell you.

__________________________
Digg:
http://digg.com/!daBVCx7 
Retweets
https://twitter.com/#!/ANomadicView/status/203525188778860544
https://twitter.com/#!/ANomadicView/status/203529421896945664
https://twitter.com/#!/ANomadicView/status/203529959736741889

The Conspiracy Theory, 9-11, and Susan Lindauer

Susan Lindauer

by Nomad
Each of us has a personal limit as to what we are prepared to believe or not. Every religion, every news report and documentary and every conspiracy theory continually probes those limits of our capacity to believe.

The Theory of Conspiracy

The term, conspiracy theory, is nowadays used as a pejorative or dismissive term. 

Without any further discussion, a State Department official or a reporter might say with a smirk, "Well, you know what conspiracy theorists are going to say..."

Because aren't people who believe in conspiracy theories unbalanced or gullible or just plain ignorant? 

But the idea that there could be an alternative version of history is not something that strikes me as strictly incredible. Call it a conspiracy theory, if you will, but giving it that title doesn't make it any more or less invalid. As any scientist will tell you, not all theories are equal but then that's what makes them theories. Each of us has to weigh the evidence in our own minds, to measure it against our own personal sense of reality, and to accept or reject the unconventional hypothesis. 

The fact that the term, conspiracy theory, is used in this way, some would see, is a sign of the closing down of rational thought or the triumph of orthodoxy and dogma. After all, conspiracies do exist and the only way to determine their veracity is, of course, to speculate upon them. 

Nomadic Exclusive: An Interview with Dick Cheney’s New Heart

by Nomad

In an unbelievable stroke of luck, Nomadic Politics scored this exclusive interview with one of the new kids on the neo-conservative block (organ-wise, that is).

Dick Cheney’s heart agreed to our request for interview last Monday at the swanky Cœur de Pierre restaurant in Manhattan's Upper West Side. As I arrived, it was impossible not to see that the heart preferred not to be recognized. 

Here is a transcript of my interview.

I suppose you are having to get used to being famous. What’s it like? Ever had a four-week deluxe coach tour of Siberia? It’s a lot like that. Except on this bus, you are locked in the on board bathroom the entire time. I see. So, now that you ’ve had some time to adjust, what do you think of your new home? Well, to be honest, as much as I’ve always wanted to be a productive, contributing organ, I have to tell you, I am a little disappointed.  Why? You know, expectations. So what were you expecting? It was all so confusing, you know. A last minute deal. One minute I was beating away in the chest of a very sweet young girl in Iowa, who had just fallen in love with a guy that had just fallen in love with her.  By the way, you people out there, please stop texting and driving.And then? And then, the next minute, bam boom, I am thrown in a container of dry ice and shipped cross-country. Traveled first class too. But then, I learned the whole story. Yes? Well, it’s Dick Cheney. Do go on. I don’t mean to be rude or anything but, it’s Dick Cheney. I had no idea. Nobody asked me what I wanted. I would have even settled for George Bush if it came right down to it.  At least he has a sense of humor. (sighs) Anyway, I am trying my best to be compatible. I take you don’t care for the former vice president of the United States much. One of the most loathed men in America? You jest.  Remember when America invaded Iraq because Cheney swore up and down there was no question of chemical and biological weapons there. And once we got in there, he arranged no-bid contracts for all his crony friends. And they in turn overcharged the government. By a billion dollars?  That’s the same guy I am hooked up with. I am not one to judge but.. would you be proud?

I see. So what is it like being Cheney’s new heart?  Straight from the … me? It’s no big thrill, let me tell you. First of all, the last occupant of this position must have been very small and insensitive. I feel cramped and cold all the time. It’s really a very sinister place. I feel dirty here. Sometimes in the night, I cry out and all I hear is an echo. And it smells like rancid lard.  A lot of people have been discussing the fact that Mr. Cheney is 71 years old. There’s been talk of some kind of age limits for transplants. What’s your take on that? If Dick was at the top of the receiving list, I can’t help wondering who was next in line. It breaks.. me.. to think that I had a chance to save the life of a child. A kid who could have grown up and saved the world from people like, well, you know who I mean. Let me lay this statistic on you: More than 3,100 Americans are waiting now- this very minute- for somebody like me, and sad to say this, but about 330 die each year before a suitable match becomes available. (ed. From Reuters: Cheney had been on a waiting list for a heart transplant for 20 months, which was a bit longer than the average wait time of six months to a year, according to a study published last year in the journal Circulation) So what are your future plans? I know for a fact, I have at least a billion more beats left in me but I’ll be checking out of here in a couple of years. I have to be realistic. He has maybe ten more years left. Is that fair to me, I ask you?  Frankly, it's too soon to talk about the future. I am still traumatized. A transplant's no walk in the park, I assure you. Strangers' fingers all over you, people poking you. Degrading. I didn't even know those people. It's like a TSA body search, but with blood.I’d have been a lot happier to have settled into a home where I am appreciated. Like in a ethical compassionate atheist type who eats a lot of vegetables and exercises regularly. Somebody who likes nature and respects humanity. Is that so much to ask for? One last question, if you had a chance to speak directly to Mr. Cheney, what would you tell him? Hmm.. I doubt very much he has ever listened to his heart. I suppose I would tell him what a lovely world it was before he stuck his nose in it.

___________________ 

If you have enjoyed this parody, please be sure to share it on twitter and other social media. And naturally, your comments are welcome too. Thanks.