Dick Cheney’s true heir

Liz is a chip off the old block, she is.

“I think, in fact, what President Obama is doing is something that America’s enemies–the Taliban, al Qaeda–have been unable to do, which is to decimate the fighting capability of this nation . . .” – Liz Cheney

Damn that Obama! Wonder if Liz knows that today is the 76th day of the 11th year of the War in Afghanistan.

17 responses to “Dick Cheney’s true heir

  1. A “chip off the old block”? … I refuse to watch.


  2. A very bright woman . She brings up a very good point. President Obama is cutting federal spending on the backs of the military. Apparently even Obama realizes that some spending cuts should be made. The President is pushing the Consolidation Authority Act, so he can by attrition get rid of a thousand to 2 thousand federal jobs. It will save a whopping $ 3 Billion dollars over 10 years . That’s pocket change in DC.

    Wow maybe up to 2,000 civilian job cuts from a guy who hired somewhere around 192,000 people since he got his job . The BS never stops .


    • Nor does your distortion of facts and knee jerk anti-Obama rhetoric.

      Obama is not cutitng military spending – he’s proposing cuts. Do you really think the Pentagon doesn’t need to be cut?

      Agency consolidation is a joke? Shall we decline to make any improvements because they dont’ solve the entire problem on their own?

      Hired 192,000 – care to support that Alan? You woulnd’t by any chance have it confused with this?

      “Job growth accelerated in February and the unemployment rate fell for the third straight month, the Labor Department said Friday. Total nonfarm payrolls increased by 192,000 in February. ”

      From Market Watch here:


  3. Pingback: Classes of Heirs in Hanafi Law of Inheritanc « My Night Dreams

  4. Ms. Holland ,

    ” Hired 192,000 – care to support that Alan? You woulnd’t by any chance have it confused with this? ”

    Uh, , , , , , no, I do not think so . I assume you recognize that President Obama cannot solve the unemployment problem just by making every unemployed American a Federal employee ? We need more private sector jobs and less public sector ones. Or as people on your side are fond of saying about the deficit, we need balance .

    Any who, this is my source . I am confidant you will find fault with it , but my point is valid about Obama’s hypocrisy with the Consolidation Authority Act .

    You are right about my anti Obama rhetoric, but to say I am distorting facts is to accuse me of Obama-speak . But, you know what, I am in a good mood and I am willing to put the 192,000 government employees into the column of saved or created jobs .


    • Well Alan, since you’re in such a receptive mood – this is from Polifiact using figures from BLS. It’s a lengthy excerpt (too lazy right now to summarize it) . Full story, links and all here:

      “We thought we’d take a look at one of the cornerstones of Pawlenty’s column — his contention that the private sector lost nearly 8 million jobs while government added 590,000.

      To see if he was right, we turned to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which calculates a wide range of labor and employment statistics on a monthly basis.

      In January 2008, total private-sector employment in the United States stood at 115,562,000. By November 2010, the most current month available, that number had sunk to 108,278,000 — a drop of roughly 7.3 million jobs. That pretty close to the “nearly 8 million” figure that Pawlenty cited. (Almost two-thirds of those job losses, incidentally, happened while George W. Bush was president.)

      But Pawlenty’s public-sector figures were problematic. The BLS has a category called government employment — which encapsulates local, state and federal employment, just as Pawlenty had defined it. Over the same period, the number of government jobs went from 22,379,000 to 22,261,000 — a decrease of 118,000, rather than an increase of 590,000, as Pawlenty had written.

      At first we were flummoxed about how Pawlenty got the numbers so wrong. We called BLS to make sure we weren’t overlooking another data set that measured the same subject, and spokesman Gary Steinberg confirmed that we were using exactly the same numbers he would use.

      We also looked at federal employment trends over the same period, on the guess that Pawlenty might have meant to refer to federal jobs, rather than all government jobs. By this calculation, the number of jobs did increase, rather than decrease, but the amount was only one-sixth of what Pawlenty had indicated. Over that period, federal employment rose from 2,739,000 to 2,837,000 — 98,000 jobs in all.

      After a bit of online research, we found a reference to the mysterious 590,000 number in — of all places — a fact-check by our colleagues at PolitiFact Ohio.

      It turns out that on Aug. 10, 2010, they analyzed a statement by Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, that “since the president became the president, we have lost 3.3 million jobs in the private sector. But you know who’s done okay and who’s not complaining today? The public sector. We’ve gained 590,000 public sector jobs.”

      LaTourette’s number for private-sector job losses at that point was spot-on. But PolitiFact Ohio found fault with his public-sector numbers. Here’s what they wrote:

      “In January 2009, there were 2,803,000 federal employees. By May, there were 3,396,000 federal workers. That’s a gain of 593,000, putting LaTourette on the money. But here’s the problem. BLS makes clear, the White House makes clear, and every major news report makes clear when these numbers are released each month that the stimulus had little to do with the growth of the federal workforce. Most of it — 559,000 new jobs from January 2009 through May – came entirely from the temporary buildup of Census workers. And many of those jobs have already disappeared. … Exclude all the Census workers hired from January 2009 through May 2010 and total federal hiring comes to only 34,000, not the 590,000 figure that LaTourette cited.”


  5. I guess when you’ve been raised by an imperialist lunatic like Dick Cheney you’ll eventually pick up some of his mannerisms. Poor lady.


  6. Imperialist lunatic, shrill, very very rude, surgically removed smile . Subjective hate speech . Very irrational .


    • Alan – you do know hte difference between ‘dislike’ and ‘hate’, don’t you?Or you’re setting a pretty low standard for ‘hate speech’.


    • Dick Cheney is a monster. Let me explain why. In 1992 he authored PNAC when he was still Defense Secretary. The Project for the New American Century. It was a blueprint for securing American dominance in the world through war and unilateralism. Consequently, it has gotten us into our current mess. Iraq and Afghanistan were part of the plan. Do some research before you try to defend a scumbag like Dick Cheney.


  7. beaufortninja ,

    ” Dick Cheney is a monster.”
    ” Do some research before you try to defend a scumbag like Dick Cheney. ”

    Liberals are so amusing . Governor Sarah Palin used much less colorful words describing Senator Barak Obama and was accused of inciting violence against the up and coming future President .

    I suppose there are two standards of hate, one for you guys and one for us .


    • Wrong again. People who take the time to learn about a person or issue before voicing their opinions are allowed to say what they like. People like yourself throw around political labels because they’re incapable of challenging “liberals” any other way. Now, go do some proper research on Dick Cheney like a good boy.


  8. Ms. Holland,

    I was going to be a nice guy and let beaufortninja have the last word on this thread. Any Liberal that tells me what ” opinions are allowed ” should not be contradicted .

    Then I read your response and you confused me so much that I have to continue the conversation . I used Ron Johnson as a source for my 192,000 increase in the Federal work force claim. You came back with a refutation of Tim Pawlenty’s article . Since I did not use Pawlenty as a source, I don’t know what you think you proved . However, in your article the author admits to an increase in the Federal work force of 215,700 jobs , which is even worse than my number .

    And I quote : ” statistic shows an increase in federal employment since January 2008 of 215,700 employees. ”

    Now still being in a good mood, I am willing to increase the number from 192,000 to 215,700 of jobs that President Obama has created or saved .


    • Of course, as the article states, “to get to it, you still have to directly contradict the definition of government workers that Pawlenty used in his column.”

      None of the figures have any validity at all unless the various claimants are using the same rules of measurement.

      Johnson seemed to think it was okay to use different measurement orgs – one to count jobs lost and another to count Fed jobs added.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s