<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/L3BPK8ahNPo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> does anyone actually like this guy? Should be an interesting documentary
Actually, there are a lot of Republicans who were very upset when Bush picked Cheney as his running mate. A lot of independent voters were too, but they decided to vote for Bush instead of the Forrest Gump doppelgänger, Al Gore.
There will always be people within the party that dislike a VP pick, as I'm sure there were many that disliked Biden or Ryan or Palin, etc. But he had 85%+ approval and favorability ratings with Republicans shortly after that 2000 election and that lasted through his entire first term and into the early 2nd: http://www.gallup.com/poll/28159/americans-ratings-dick-cheney-reach-new-lows.aspx So it wasn't a significant portion of the party that disliked him until much later.
I would never submit to these types of interviews unless unedited transcripts are made available. They can narrate over what you say, or cut parts out altogether.
I know they probably edited that for sure because Dick Cheney is such a morally upstanding wonderful human being.
Apparently Sean Hannity likes him. Two days ago I was listening to Hannity's radio show (I lasted about 3 minutes) when I heard him say "thank god for Dick Chaney" to a caller that brought up the crazy stuff Chaney has been saying. Hannity and Chaney deserve each other...
There's not much to like. Politics aside, it seems like he would be incredibly unpleasant to even have a simple conversation with. Republicans liked him because they were embarrassed of the president they elected, which was rightfully so. They needed someone with a little sense to fall back on.
Somebody with a little sense is not how I would describe him. If the party wanted somebody with some sense, they could have gone wi any number of other people, including George's brother Jeb.
You know who hired Halliburton for the first time? Bill Clinton during the Balkans. Do you know why they were hired again at the outset of the war in Afghanistan? Because they were the only logistics company in the entire world who could provide the assistance the military needed in the time they needed it, and the same could be said of the war in Iraq. This is fact, plain and simple. How do I know? I worked on the LOGCAP III project which would fly in 500-750 people from all over the world in to Houston every single week. We'd house them, feed them, train them, put them through safety training, run background checks, drug tests, get them passports, find a station for them, equip them, buy them plane tickets and countless other steps and then ship them off to support our troops in a matter of a week or two. Then we'd do the same thing the very next week. Dick Cheney being CEO before becoming vice president had nothing to do with the contracts awarded to Halliburton. If you'll notice they lost out future contracts as other logistics companies invested heavily in to their infrastructures to compete for the contracts. As soon as other companies could, they did take said contracts from Halliburton/KBR. I was there before and during LOGCAP III, and to see all of the parts in motion overnight was pretty freaking incredible. Hate on Dick Cheney all you want, but Halliburton got the contract for the wars because no one else at the time could do it... and no I don't work for the company now, nor do I care how they look (they've both since split anyway)... I only care people have the freaking facts straight.
All of this may be very true. That being said, when a VP is instrumental in the decision to start a war that creates a major contract for a company he holds a stake in, the perception of self dealing will be there.
You are blind, blind, blind, blind. Then get them straight. Halliburton has always been set up very well, probably run with great efficiency, and ready to go at a moment's notice blah blah etc etc ad infinitum. Eleven years ago or so, Rumsfeld lamented "the lack of targets in Afghanistan". They turned their attention to Iraq and sold that war. I'm sure you made some good money during your tenure there and have some pride in your work, but let's not be delusional. Going into Iraq and destroying things left and right and then having Cheney's "former" company Halliburton come in and sweep up---Cheney, mind you, who, after an exhaustive search as head of the Find-Me-a-VP committee for GWB, chose, well, himself---reeks of conflict of interest. Worse: collusion. Another thing: from what I've read, invading Iraq was a foregone conclusion before 9/11 ever happened. 9/11 was the excuse. GWB held a meeting in his first week about Iraq's "nukular" program and in June stuck his head into Condi Rice's office (she was talking with a jr. Congressman) and said, "F*** Saddam, we're taking him out." Not to say that Halliburton wasn't ready at the front of the line for other Presidents. But I think other companies got their act together and were better able to compete with Halliburton on these things. Couldn't have been too tough, given the ungodly amount of money the company charged the U.S. government. As Mark Salter, a Republican political operative/speechwriter says in the movie "Game Change", "How does Cheney eat while wearing that Darth Vader mask?"
