unapatriciated
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-13-09 06:32 PM
Original message |
|
Looks like Dick has a Bush in sights.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-13-09 06:33 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
ScottLand
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-13-09 06:46 PM
Response to Original message |
|
This will be the greatest literary misnomer in the history of books. The words "Cheney" and "Tell-all" don't go together at all. Try fitting "Cheney" and "The Usual Lies" and it will go over better.
:hide:
|
spirit of wine
(228 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-13-09 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. Yes- literally I don't and won't but it |
|
Save your money for Watergate part II
|
WestSeattle2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-13-09 08:22 PM
Response to Original message |
4. This is a joke, right? I mean really, Cheney? Tell-all? It is |
|
telling though, how those who have served with Bush's, either one, in the end couldn't stand either one. The Reagan's loathed Bush 41 and his lovely bride, and Cheney is clearly repulsed by tWiggy Bush.
That said, thinking back over the hundreds of thousands of lives lost, bodies maimed, billions stolen, moral high ground lost for generations, if not forever, high crimes committed, including treason, there is definitely enough material there for a tell-all book. Of course no one in their right mind expects Dick Cheney to ever utter one word that's truthful, but the material is there for someone else to write.
|
burning rain
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-13-09 09:29 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Cheney's a serious man. Seriously evil. |
|
He's a warrior for his cause, and I have a qualified respect for that even as I hate him. Whatever he has to say is of more historical interest than whatever treacle some hack publishes under George W. Bush's name.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 14th 2024, 02:38 PM
Response to Original message |