Jump to content

Talk:Dick Cheney/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Leaving Vice-Presidential Office

Dick Cheney will leave vice-presidential office on January 20, 2009 and will be succeeded by Delaware Senator Joe Biden. Cheney will return to Wyoming on this official date. President George W. Bush will return to Texas also on January 20, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.220.242 (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes... was there a question or point in there? Happyme22 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
He just wanted to be sure we knew about it. Some of us are a little behind the news curve. Either that, or he just likes hitting the "[" and "]" keys a lot. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

1996 Presidential Election

In an interview tonight (1-14-2009) with Jim Lehrer, Dick Cheney commented that he had seriously considered running for President in the 1996 election, going so far as to solicit over $1 million in campaign funds, before ultimately deciding against it. Do any of you who know this part of Cheney's life have an interest in creating a section on this topic? (I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to do it myself). Baileypalblue (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC) he's a loser baby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.245.194 (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

public perception

having just removed a recent addition of joe biden's comments regarding dick cheney, under the section "public perception" (biden's personal opinion is not citable as an example of cheney's "public perception"), i noticed that immediately preceding that material is the following:

Cheney has often created controversy, mostly from his role in shaping the Bush administration's policies on Iraq and the war on terrorism. In one instance, the vice president was recorded as apparently supporting waterboarding, widely regarded as a form of torture, as an interrogation technique for questioning suspected terrorists.[122] The following day, the White House denied that Cheney was referring to waterboarding or torture.[123]

while it is properly sourced, how is that an example of cheney's public perception?

likewise the following:

On April 24, 2007, Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio presented articles of impeachment against Cheney, as House Resolution 333.[127][128][129] It was not initially cosponsored, and was immediately referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where no action was taken.[130] The resolution has acquired 24 Democratic cosponsors since its introduction, six of whom are members of the House Judiciary Committee.[131][132] After six months without a debate or vote, Kucinich re-introduced identical content as a new resolution, House Resolution 799, on November 6, 2007.[133] This was also referred to the House Judiciary Committee.[134]

again, it's well-referenced, but it has nothing to do with cheney's public perception.

i would recommend this material either be removed, or worked into more appropriate sections of the article. Anastrophe (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Has it been discussed his use of totally unprofessional profanity ("go f*ck yourself") on the Senate floor against Patrick Lehey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobTheMad (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to update the Gallup figures for Cheney's popularity but the page is locked. The Gallup poll from May 29-31, 2009, indicates Cheney is at 37% Favorable, 54% Unfavorable, 9% No Opinion. -- Original Pinyl (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheney's health problems

Regarding Cheney's history of cardiac trouble: I remember reading a 2006 article in Vanity Fair which mentioned that Cheney was observed to eat a buffalo steak by cutting the steak up into bite-size pieces and then salting each side of the piece of meat before putting it into his mouth (see here). I recognise that this is a relatively trivial piece of information, but I think it might have some small relevance to his heart trouble. Lexo (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The article states that the Vice President strained his back on January 21, forcing him to attend the inauguration (on January 20) in a wheelchair. 69.177.92.242 (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)J. Parodi

Yes, a closer look at the article says: "the Vice-President will be in a wheelchair for the next couple of days, including for tomorrow's inauguration." That implies the incident occurred on the 19th. The article is dated the 21st. The wording needs to be changed. Above comment is correct. Change date to 19th 68.38.16.244 (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Fixed - thank you for pointing this out. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Alcoholism? On a lesser part of the internet someone claimed DC has a couple of DUI convictions, and might in fact be an alcoholic. Is there any truth to this? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to have health problems when you are a robot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.37.112.113 (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure of documents

Cheney has taken the legal position that the vice president is not part of the executive branch, but it is apart of the legislative branch. The courts have ruled in favor of Cheney in the lawsuit brought by groups who wants records kept by Cheney and his staff to be archived.

Please review this article (link is below) for further detail. I would edit the page; however, I do not have access to do so. May someone follow up with this. I feel proper evidence for an addition to the 'disclosure of documents' section has been provided. Thank you.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iEUbGeyMLv1e6G_sD5VC_l_P0okAD95QI1EO0

Pallacydenial (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Does Article 2 of the US Constitution seem relevant here? I do believe that it provides a position for the VP and specifically grants him the right to succession should the President be unable to fulfill his term in office. Cheney supposedly swore to uphold and defend this document. I assume he read it !? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.254.130.235 (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Name of Cheney

Issue has been addressed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If Dick Cheney's mother's maiden surname was Dickey, then does that make his official name Richard Bruce "Dick" Dickey Cheney? Micasta (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well unlike in some countries, in America it it not automatically assumed that one has placed his/her mother's maiden name as a part of his/her own name (unless the parents of a child decide that they want to use the mother's maiden name). And Cheney's decided not to use his mother's maiden name. But thanks for the question. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
And he chose not to use his mother's maiden name for obvious reasons, eh? Thanks for answering. :) Micasta (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
It just isn't an American custom to add one's mother's surname to one's own. If my father was George Washington and my mother was Wilma Flintstone, 90% of Americans would assume my last name to be Washington, not Flintstone. Some people will hyphenate the two last names, but that is rare. I know that in Latin cultures, it is common to have both parents' surnames, but having a Caucasian/European background, I am not surprised Dickey isn't part of his name. Ciderbarrel (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should be closed. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Accomplishments

I suggest that this article should have a specific section specifically listing Cheney's specific accomplishments during his 8-year tenure. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.251.159 (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is amazingly neutral considering that most people are so polarized in their opinions of Dick Cheney. My congrats to all the editors that keep Wikipedia about the facts and not the propaganda. In my humble opinion, Dick Cheney is evil incarnate. But this is an encyclopedia, not a political blog. So a section on his "accomplishments" is inherently biased in favor of Dick Cheney / Republicans, etc. Just as an article of his "crimes" would be inherently biased against Dick Cheny / Republicans, etc. So leave it alone. The article is fine how it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.142 (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that a section on his accomplishments would be biased in an overtly-pro Cheney manner. It is best to incorporate things he did well and things he didn't do so well into relevant sections of the article. Happyme22 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Halliburton stock options

Cheney owned 433,333 Halliburton stock options throughout the duration of his Vice-presidency.[1] On the onset he declared that he would sell the stock after his time in office was finished. Any proceeds from this sale would go to charity.[2] Does anyone know if this actually happened? -- Esemono (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, though he allegedly donated 77% of his AGI to charity, so it's very possible. MSNBC --64.9.97.44 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Where does it say that in the linked article? -- Esemono (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
"They reported adjusted gross income of nearly $8.82 million, which was largely the result of exercising stock options that had been set aside in 2001 for charity." followed by "The Cheneys donated just under $6.87 million to charity from the stock options and royalties from Mrs. Cheney’s books". that makes for 77% of their AGI going to charity (actually closer to 78%). Anastrophe (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
AGI? What is that? Where is it mentioned in the article? That article is from 2006 so that means he sold his Halliburton stock in 2006? -- Esemono (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
here's what factcheck.org has to say from 2004
another article i found about it
I can't seem to find anything current though 76.31.233.29 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Public perception

He "remained a very public and controversial figure"?

This article does not accurately reflect the public perception Mr. Cheney had during his time in office. His poll numbers have steadily declined and he was awarded an honorary doctorate from BYU? Nothing is said of the common perception of the 46th Vice President as a man-sized-safe-owning, friend-face-shooting Dr. Strangelove, which all must agree is easily the most common perception of the man, whether they feel it is a mischaracterization or not. I mean, the jokes that were made when he was rolled out to the inauguration in a wheel chair.

I know that the hunting incident is mentioned during the section on his vice presidency, but it is obviously a matter relating to his public perception, not his service as vice president. It just happened while he was vice president, it has nothing to do with his policy decisions and so forth. The public perception section needs to be enormously improved; this is definitely not a good article without what is an essential aspect of Mr. Cheney's life and his role in national politics.

Also, the "War on Terrorism" section is rather biased. I have retitled it "Iraq War," as that is what it is actually about (which is unequivocally understood as having only dubious connections to any attempt to combat terrorism), but its contents remain problematic. Other than a claim made by Senator Kerry that Cheney lacks credibility and a "despite" caveat, it does not include the essential facts that Mr. Cheney's claims have all been shown to be without any basis whatsoever.

I do not personally have the time to address these issues, but this is clearly not a "good article" and I hope someone will do so at once. Atropos (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Present and past tense

I would like to point out that there are many references in the article that are still in the present tense, as if Cheney were still in office.

For what it's worth, I also agree with Atropos' comments above. Brian Eisley (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed one to present tense sentence in the public perceptions section, but I'm blocked from fixing it. -Wervo (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw only once such instance, and fixed it. If there are others, please note here and I'll fix them, too. Thanks! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Executive Assassination Squads

Is anybody going to write anything about Cheney's assassination squads that go to foreign countries and execute people without presidential or congressional oversight?

Feel free to do it yourself. Seymour Hersh, the source on this matter, was clear in an interview here [3] that he had presidential approval. (Also, he was clear that he had already written about parts of this program in the New Yorker before...) By contrast, Congress didn't know about the operations, so it is inconsistent to lump them both together with the vague term "oversight." -Wervo (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to forget about it. That is not appropriate at all for a BLP. Happyme22 (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. As WP does not censor, how is it inappropriate? -Wervo (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you joking, "Happyme22"? Talk about neocon spin, why don't you elaborate on why exactly this isn't valid criticism that should be included.71.131.7.89 (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Be nice don't use names, be more WP:CIVIL please. -Wervo (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
do it yourself. -User:MTL 23:35, 13 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.191.252 (talk)

(outdent) Enough with the personal attacks IP 71 and MTL. Stay WP:CIVIL. Wervo, I don't believe that allegations alleging that Cheney sent squads of people to go to foreign countries and murder mass amounts of people is suitable for a biography of a living person on Wikipedia. It would need to be common knowledge and you would need multiple citations. Happyme22 (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

However, we could clearly mention something about Dick Cheny being a constant "joke" on shows like the Daily Show (but also others like Letterman, Jay Leno etc.) Including a man sized safe in his office, assassin squads etc etc. In accordance with what appears to be the standard here on Wikipedia, repeatedly and diverse media mentions are clearly relevant to a biography.
In some episodes Jon Stewart goes so far as to equate him, through visual approximation only, to Satan the prince of darkness himself. A "popular media" section seems relevant, this coincidentily avoids the problem with the actual factuality of the acts. If noone else does, I will. Sourcing it will be cake and thedailyshow.com for one provides a searchable clip engine for free on their site.
213.141.89.20 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that when dealing with the darker side of any political symbol, finding "facts" available to public are hard to come by. Nevertheless, phrases like "mass mounts of people" and reference to "common knowledge" asserts that you don't care about the facts, just the message. Very little about the man's life is common knowledge, hence why people come to this site expecting a full rounded description of him. Allegations have been made that Cheney was a key figure in an assassination ring which operated on a level beyond even CIA administration. If you care about the truth which you seem to crusade for so vehemently, perhaps it would help to pursue the entire horizon of news sources available. -Justin Villapando

My current thinking is that it is notable and verifiable that JSOC operated in countries under Cheney's supervision without checking in with CIA and without any Congressional oversight.[4] Perhaps the old Hersh article should be used, as the Asia times treats it as completely new news (as I mention above it is not). Hersh now regrets his use of the word assassinate.[5] I assume because it was misconstrued as shocking "new news." -Wervo (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It is worth including, but you have to make sure the references are accurate and verifiable. Kylelovesyou (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Google Earth

According to an NYT editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13dowd.html?th&emc=th), Cheney "wouldn’t list his office in the federal jobs directory, who had the vice president’s residence blocked on Google Earth, who went to the Supreme Court to keep from revealing which energy executives helped him write the nation’s energy policy...." Is this relevant enough to include if true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.37.54 (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is, if others agree. It is true that it was blocked, but not so sure if the second part was true that it was to "keep from revealing which energy executives helped him write the nation’s energy policy". Kylelovesyou (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Post Vice Presidency

We really need a section on Cheney post vice presidential life, especially since he's so active and vocal Darth Kalwejt (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Confusing

The following paragraph in the lead is confusing.

Cheney joined the presidential campaign of George W. Bush in 2000, who selected him as his running mate. After becoming Vice President, Cheney remained a very public and controversial figure.

This seems to suggest that Cheney was both public and controversial before and after becoming VP. However, I don't recall him being either public or controversial prior to being VP. He certainly wasn't very public during his time as VP, and was only really controversial during the second term as VP. He is now however much more public and probably more controversal after leaving office. Arzel (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Votes

I question the neutrality of this section in particular, and the article in general. It looks to me like whoever wrote the section on his voting record was setting out to make Cheney look ridiculous. Some more general comments on his voting record are entirely appropriate, but I think that highlighting his policy changes over the years is a little over the top. a lot of the other stuff is iffy, too. The same amount of coverage for five draft deferments (the same as Biden), and for all of his service in the Ford White House? One Wheel (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't Cheney have a controversies section?

Question has been answered
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

why doesn't he have a section of controversies like most political figures? Also, there is no mention of the move to impeach him and the rallies/protests about impeaching him? Kylelovesyou (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of his controversies: Halliburton ties, Cheney v. United States District Court,Dick Cheney hunting incident, Dick Armey, Lewis Libby, EPA controversies, vice-presidential power, Wolfowitz Doctrine, CIA leak, American Empire policies, Enhanced interrogation techniques, United States v. Libby, the energy task force, lying to congress, allegations of WMDs, Iraq War, Google Map censoring, the "assassinating squads", NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, protests to impeach Cheney, the Sam Fox incident Kylelovesyou (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that Controversies sections are a sign of an article that can be improved. Rather than having a discrete section of controversies regarding the topic of the article, such controveries should be included (where verifiable by appropriate sources, in a WP:NPOV way, in the body of the article. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
There isn't a controversies section per WP:CRITICISM, which advises that criticisms/controversies sections usually do not adhere to WP:NPOV. Controversies are included throughout the article, per WP:WEIGHT. Happyme22 (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You said it much better than I - I completely agree. I was trying (but must have failed) to say the same thing. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should be closed.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

Pardon me for offering a friendly reminder to the editors of this article:

Wikipedia content (including articles, categories, templates, and others) is collaboratively edited. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no-one, however expert they think they are (and may actually be) has the right to act as if they own a particular article. ... If you find yourself edit warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions, and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later. Or, if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page, appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process. ... [Examples of such ownership I've noticed in recent edits include these events:]

  • One editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim the right, whether openly or implicitly, to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include egregious formatting errors.)
  • Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not. (This does not include removing vandalism.)

A recent set of changes and reverts gives good examples of these events:

Let's leave it as is, OK? Neither version appears partisan to me. Both versions seem grammatically correct and supported by the citations. There's nothing to prove here - perhaps a break from the article, or finding some substantive improvements, are in order? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but there is a difference between ownership and common sense. There seems to be an effort to label the coal and gas industry as the fossil fuel industry. There is no such thing as a fossil fuel industry. Yes, coal is a fossil fuel, the others are not technically fossil fuels. There are many sources of Oil and Gas that are not the product of millions of years, and are not technically fossils of plant and animal matter. Arzel (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Technicalities don't matter, the fact of the matter is is that the oil and gas industry are referred to as the fossil fuel industry by many, just as many referred to Proposition 8 as Prop 8. I realize that a google search, and blogs, are not reliable sources, but in what they are being sourced for, in that many do refer to the industry as what was previously stated, at least, many common people, with regards to the media.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about Cheney, not the Washington Post

There are 2 solid paragraphs about the 2007 Washington Post article in the VP section, policy subsection. This is too long a section about a peripheral topic and over-reliance on one source. It must be re-written in order to be objective. I will not guide the re-writing in order to be objective nor will I say what is wrong with the current version. I will only say that undue weight from one source is bad unless it is an unimportant and obscure article which is given more slack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User F203 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • A four-day series of articles from a reputable author, which material became an authoritative book on the subject, contain material that had not been introduced before and was essential to the article achieving WP:GA status. The use of this material is consistent with good WP practice. User:HopsonRoad 19:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oil or Fossil Fuel

Will the two editors who are edit warring over "oil and gas"/"fossil fuel" please start talking instead of just reverting each other's edits. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a better common noun for petroleum and coal than fossil fuel. So this is what I've used. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps just leaving it as petroleum and coal is a valid compromise? "Fossil fuel" is currently recognized as a bit of a misnomer (albeit one in common use). And combining both Petroleum and Coal into one "industry" does not work -- the two industries are quite competitive with one another. Having no real reason to combine the two - let's just leave them separate. Collect (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
My father worked in both the coal industry and the gas and oil industry for over 15 years. I never heard anyone refer to either as a fossil fuel industry. I have many relatives that currently work in the oil industry and none of them say ther work in the fossil fuel industry. For a point of logic look at the definition of sets. Fossil Fuels are a set than encompass all forms of energy derived from the fossilization of plants and animals. Oil is a set which intersects fossil fuels as not all oils are fossil fuels, and many oils are derived from numerous sources which are not the result of fossilization. Coal is a fossil fuel, however Coal and Crude Oil are not the only fossil fuels. Using the descriptor of Fossil Fuel industry is simply not a logical connection. Perhaps Lapsed Pacifist should explain why the desire to combine two perfectly good and seperate industries (Coal and Oil) into one non-existant and incorrect word? Arzel (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
What type of petroleum is not a fossil fuel? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Try all of the synthetics, as a start. Work from there. Collect (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I see. Is synthetic oil a significant part of the industry in Wyoming? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Should I take that as a no? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(1) Incorrect Link --

This page has a section discussing an investment scandal with a prison operating company. The company named is the Vanguard Group. There may be a company by this name involved; but is not the same company that the link connects to.

The Vanguard Group that the link connects to is a mutual fund company, which may possibly own some shares of prison companies, but is by no means in the business of operating prisons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewortiz (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I couldn't find anything about the prisons but I did end up investing in one of Vanguard's funds so I guess it was worth it for me. Should be updated to reflect the facts though. - Original Pinyl (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(2) Typo --

Under "Health Problems," we see: "Cheney was cared for by the White House Medical Unit (WHMU).[126] Staff from the WHMG accompany the president and the vice president" "WHMG" should be "WHMU," right?

Observation: Descendants of the Cheney line

It turns out (follow the links backwards) that Carole Lombard and Dick Cheney are related, both having a common ancestor in John Cheney who settled in Massachusetts in 1635.

Cheney and Same-Sex Marriage

It is worth mentioning that, while definitely a prominent GOP supporter of ssm, as indicated in the article, he is not THE most prominent Republican supporter of ssm. That title goes to President Gerald R. Ford who supported as far back as in 1998 in a Larry King episode. Former President is more prominent than former VP. Agree?

The article says "one of the most prominent." --Happyme22 (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

accusations from CIA head Leon Panetta of criminal activity

Apparently the head of the CIA has now publicly stated that Mr. Cheney violated US law by ordering the CIA to conceal a counter-terrorism plan from Congress.

Should this be included in his article? I mean, it seems kind of relevant?

Mardiste (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Add it, this article needs some mention of Satan's Death Squads 76.252.41.225 (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I've not seen any statement from the CIA that "that Mr. Cheney violated US law". If you have a reputable source you can cite, I'm sure many would like to see it. Barring that, I would not support any mention in the article of this controversy. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/17/congress.cia/index.html#cnnSTCText Anarchangel (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I read every line of the referenced article. The closest it gets to the statement at the top of this section "the CIA has now publicly stated that Mr. Cheney violated US law" is that there will be probe of "possible violations of federal law" - and that's not very close. Accuracy is important, please. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

No mention of Leahy?

Why is there no mention of the well-known fact that Cheney used the F-word against senator Patrick Leahy on the senate floor? and that Cheney has been fingered by Leahy w.r.t. secrecy issues:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5153305.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.71.55.235 (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Arrest if he goes to Vermont towns

This seems pretty non notable. Was this a big deal outside the UK? --Tom (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't seem that it was a big deal and, put simply, it lacks notability. In addition, the burden is on the editor who wishes to add contested material to take their case to the talk page. Happyme22 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
NVM, I can see where this is going. Reliefappearance (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hunting Incident Placement

The Hunting Incident doesn't have anything to do with his career as Vice President, so I'm going to move it into the Personal Life section. Friginator (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

notable?

I feel a comment by President Reagan's son, Ron Reagan, is notable.

he called Dick Cheney an "unindicted war criminal" [9] Reliefappearance (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

While his father was one of the leaders of the conservative movement, Ron Reagan is a committed liberal whose views of Cheney are going to be negative. There is no credible evidence from reliable sources to support Dick Cheney being an "unindicted war criminal," thus in accordance with our BLP policy, the information should not go in. Happyme22 (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
You mean there is no evidence that is credible in your opinion. Right? Reliefappearance (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Can you find more sources with similar allegations? If not, there is nothing to talk about. InnerParty (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, Reliefappearance, I mean that there is no credible evidence, period. Happyme22 (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I must agree. I find no non-partisan WP:RS that describes Cheney as a "war criminal". --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
LOL! No, you mean there is no credible evidence in your opinion, as a Cheney supporter. Reliefappearance (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried to find more sources with similar allegations? InnerParty (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you kidding? [10]Reliefappearance (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS and WP:AGF. I have no problem with an addition based on properly reliable sources. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

please insert under 'Alma Mater'

University of Wisconsin-Madison, M.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.213.166.68 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hyphen

Isn't vice-president supposed to be hyphenated? I did this and was reverted. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


No. It is supposed to be capitalized though. 162.136.193.1 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you base that on? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

War Crimes

Dick Cheney appeared on the ABC's This Week and confessed to waterboarding.

KARL: ... waterboarding, clearly, what was your...

CHENEY: I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques that...

KARL: And you opposed the administration's actions of doing away with waterboarding?

CHENEY: Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.73.55.10 (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand your point.Jarhed (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The point is that Cheney, approved of Enhanced interrogation techniques by the Army and CIA. They didn't flinch. This is not discussed much in this article, yet should be. www.thisweek.com, February 17, 2010, "Cheney: Confessed war criminal?" Richrakh````
I'm not sure where you got the idea that WP articles were here for "discussion". Please RTFM.Jarhed (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm...well, how about, "report," "mention," or "record?" Do any of these words suit you better? The fact is, Cheney is proud of his actions and said so. It should be so "stated" in the article. Richrakh````
It is quite notable that Cheney explicitly condones torture. And that source does satisfy WP:RS and WP:V on the matter. So the way I see it there's really no question as to whether it should be in the article or not. The only question is how to word it in respect to WP:NPOV and WP:BOLP. Kevin Baastalk 17:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I have missed it thus far in the discussion, but please describe in detail which source says that Cheney "explicitly condones torture".Jarhed (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
"I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques that..." -Dick Cheney, ABC's "This Week". Kevin Baastalk 21:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I am still missing the mention of "torture".Jarhed (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Now of course since the Bush Administration, Fox News, and the RNC's campagin to sanitize the term waterboarding, it's now "controversial" whether making someone feel like they're drowning is cruel or not. So we'd have to dilly-dally around that a bit. Also, it's not obvious that "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a euphemism for methods that aren't conventionally considered "acceptable", to use yet another euphemism. Even though these things are popularly recognized in the historical context. So that would be another example of where we'd have to be careful with the wording to present both sides according to WP:NPOV. Kevin Baastalk 21:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
"dilly-dally"? Do you mean like when you say "cruel" when you are trying express the concept "torture"? Such euphemistic posturing is unnecessary. Find a reliable source for "war crimes" and we have something to work with. Find a reliable source for "torture" and we can go from there. Until then, dilly-dally all you wish.--Jarhed (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
When I say cruel I mean quite simply "cruel". I am intentionally leaving expressing the concept of "torture" to the relevant laws and literature on the subject. I am saying that it is precisely the "cruel" element that they intended to make disappear. Kevin Baastalk 15:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
And here's something a little more specifically relevant: List_of_war_crimes#2001-present:_September_11th.2C_and_the_.22War_on_Terrorism.22 Kevin Baastalk 16:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

<== Oh please, spare me your childish lectures. Yap about war crimes all you wish, but if you want a mention in this particular BLP, please provide a reliable source.Jarhed (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As to "find me a reliable source": I believe the whole point of this is that we have direct notable quotes from Dick Cheney on ABC. A reliable source, no? As regards reliable sources for "cheney supports torture" or anything like that I have specifically stated twice that we should avoid synthesis so you should have realized by now that you're, as they say, "preaching to the choir".
And I don't remember the last time I heard a "child" discuss current events and international law. Esp. while citing sources and specifics and being eruditely deliberate in their choice of words. thus I find your "childish lectures" remark to be completely ridiculous / off-the-wall - even laughable, in addition to being offensive and inappropriate. (Which might I say, is, ironically, well... you get the picture.) Kevin Baastalk 16:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It sounds to me as if we have consensus then.Jarhed (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep. I'm happy with things. Forgive me for getting a little carried away at the end of my last response. Kevin Baastalk 19:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Waterboarding support on This Week 20100214

I apologize for knee-jerking a little there, I think it was the "war crimes" mention that put me off. I propose the following as the 2nd para of the Dick_cheney#Criticism_of_President_Obama section:

During a February 14, 2010 appearance on ABC's This Week, Cheney reiterated his criticism of the Obama administration's "mindset" of treating "terror attacks against the United States as criminal acts as opposed to acts of war". He also reiterated his strong support of waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques for captured terrorist suspects, saying, "I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program."[1]

  1. ^ "'This Week' Transcript: Former Vice President Dick Cheney". This Week. ABC. February 14, 2010. Retrieved February 19, 2010.

Jarhed (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the first sentence be placed in Criticism of President Obama. The second sentence should be reworded slightly and placed at the end of the Iraq War section, when the events occured or in the Policy Fomulation section after footnote #98 which already mentions Interrogation and can be elaborated on. Cheney has supported his stand on interrogation long before he started criticizing Obama. Richrakh````
Perhaps I misunderstood. I was under the impression that several editors were very emotional about getting some mention of this interview into the article. What I hear you saying is that everything Cheney said in the interview was old news. If that is what you are saying, I agree, and I vote no change to the article.Jarhed (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Everything Cheney said in the ABC interview is NOT old news. The ABC interview in 2010 is the first time that I know of that Cheney has actually said, "I was and remain a strong proponent, etc..." It could be mentioned in the section "Irag War" when the events occurred or in the section "Policy Formulation" which currently states "...Cheney's influence on decisions pertaining to...what constitutes torture." From that sentence one could construe that Cheney is AGAINST enhanced interrogation, or maybe that Cheney only DISCUSSED what constitutes torture. We now know, as he stated for the first time to ABC, that "I WAS AND REMAIN A STRONG PROPONENT..." Nowhere in the current article is this mentioned or even hinted at. It should be. Your sentence on criticism of Obama is fine. But I feel the second sentence would be more useful placed within the context of the Irag War or Policy Formulation sections. Which does not make it old news, just more information on old events. Richrakh````

<== Fine, I made the edits as you suggested. I hope you're happy now.Jarhed (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. No, I'm not particularly happy....but Dick Cheney is. He was finally guoted correctly. You seem to have a problem with it though. Why? Richrakh````
Sorry about that. I would have put one of these things in, but I always screw them up: :*&  :@# --Jarhed (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Dick Cheney Hospitalized for chest pains (2010.02.22-Mo)

I heard just tonight on TV that Dick Cheney has been hospitalized (First time in 2010s) at the George Washington University Hospital with chest pains, and is resting comfortably, according to his staff. CNN.com article RYAN 3000 (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Initially, he was not called up because the Selective Service System was only taking older men

prove it or remove this utter nonsense from the article. prove that Cheney was too young to be drafted in viet nam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Evidently, Cheney kept getting college deferments until he got married and had a kid making him a hardship case and thus ineligable. The Selective Service did NOT take only older men. Richrakh````

Editors/Admins who are "watching" this page, both users make a valid claim here. The contention that "the selective service system was only taking older men" needs a supporting citation (in my opinion, a government/scholarly source is necessary to substantiate this statement).

It is clear this statement was written to mitigate the fact that Cheney had secured so many deferments (along with all the obvious implications of this fact). The contention in question here is POV garbage and should be removed unless a substantive citation is provided. --Aristotle1776 (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Crimes

Arrest warrants have been requested for Dick Cheney in other countries such as Spain and Germany and war crimes investigations have begun there. I think this should be mentioned in the article. He has admitted to being a strong supporter of waterboarding, which the USSC--the law of the land--has ruled is a form of torture. This makes him in violation of the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Geneva Conventions which banned all uses of torture. Both of these acts have been ratified by the United States which makes them official law in the US. It's notable and there are plenty of sources for this. Wikipediarules2221 09:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You would need references to any legal actions against Cheney before finding an appropriate place in the article. If you have any, please post them here first to permit discussion. User:HopsonRoad 16:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
G-news and Google provide no such results and I would imagine they would show up for such a prominent figure. Soxwon (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Under the section dealing with his first term as vice-president, the article says "Despite contrary claims from the Pentagon, Cheney continued to assert a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda prior to the Iraq War in several public speeches, drawing criticism from some members of the intelligence community and leading Democrats.[59][60][61]" The first source references a speech he gave in 2007, the second link is dead, and the third link includes an oblique reference to a statement that he made in September 2003, six months after the Iraq War had already begun. Given that nothing in any of the links references a statement made by Cheney prior to the Iraq War, this sentence should be removed unless it can be better sourced. Leuchars (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed this sentence. Leuchars (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference 6 no longer contains Dick Cheney information

ie reference 6 links to http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/ which has details of the current incumbent.

Minor wp:linkrot (Jeoknowhat (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC))

Perhaps this was the intended link?

http://web.archive.org/web/20040109065959/www.whitehouse.gov/kids/vicepresident/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.125.105 (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm honestly trying to be nuetral

How about a picture that doesn't look like the man is currently having a stroke? Lots42 (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He looks ok to me, but that tie, ugh.--Jarhed (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Arrest Warrant by Nigeria and Interpol

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/nigeria-to-interpol-arrest-dick-cheney/19742388

Major breaking developments related to Mr. Cheney needs to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom85 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the Nigeria warrant edit and right now it looks pretty NPOV to me. Thanks.Jarhed (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. I have additionally updated the issue. Jusdafax 09:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous inclusion for Cheney. While it is notable for Haliburton the connection to Cheney is spurious at best. He was clearly targeted because he is a well-known figure, but aside from that doesn't appear to have anything to do with this. Removed as a WP:COAT and a WP:BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Please continue this discussion at the disputed content section below.--Jarhed (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Settlement Of Oil Mine in Nigeria

Oil Mine Settlement

Dear Respected Honorable Vice President Dick Chenney, Everything is written strictly as per rules and standards and following all ethical values and laws by an International Justice Court Netherland .So please it doesnot mean to bribe or any fraudlent history only way to keep healthier relationship with World .Actually here task is the movement of peace across the world and deserving for Honorable Former President George Bush and Honorable Vice President Dick Chenney for an achievement of Nobel Award with contribution of India myself .So being global means patriotism towards our nation both United States Of America and India. So please cooperate me for an International Justice Court France to put up the petition and held all legal documents to make a mark in the history of America and India .Awaiting for your better co operation and your patriotic reply from the bottoms of the heart . Thanks, Yours Truly, Sahasrabudhe Anand Shamrao

You seem smart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.8.216 (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion - content dispute

This content is under dispute and has been in and out multiple times, please attempt more discussion to achieve a compromise or a consensus, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  • - In early December 2010, the Nigerian government filed corruption charges against Cheney in connection to his role as the chief executive of Halliburton. The case relates to a former subsidiary of Halliburton (KBR) which admitted to bribing Nigerian officials in a construction bid. In mid-December, 2010, the case was settled when Nigeria agreed to drop the corruption charges against Cheney and Halliburton in exchange for a $250 million settlement.

Now look here, On Dec 13 I read the inclusion about the Nigerian case. At that time it was a bare mention of the facts of the case and I had no problem with it. *Now* the entire thing looks like an unscrupulous shakedown of an innocent company. Do you mean to tell me that bona fide corruption charges were *dropped*? For this information to be included here, it *must* indicate that Cheney is blameless because there is absolutely no proof of wrongdoing.--Jarhed (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/dick-cheney-nigeria-bribe_n_796726.html

The charges weren't just "dropped." $250,000,000 in "fines" are being negotiated. If this were a "unscrupulous shakedown" no company would agree to that. Sufdub (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. Cheney had *nothing* to do with this and was indicted by the Nigerian government as a shakedown. I suspect that any company that wants to do business in Nigeria has to play this game.Jarhed (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.ww4report.com/node/9338

Update: Halliburton and Nigeria agreed upon a $35 million settlement. We need to now consider how this should be phrased in this article. Sufdub (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree. Several other editors did as well. Some though, some of whose past editing histories are of interest, appear to want to censor this information from Cheney's Wikipedia article. And it appears they will wikilawyer the issue to get what they want. The only way to get this obviously important information into the article is spend a fair amount of time at it to get past all the specious arguments thrown in the path of including this information, which in my view comes down to Halliburton making a payoff to get their former CEO off the hook. I support your view wholeheartedly. Best wishes, Jusdafax 06:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Your assumption of bad faith is a violation of WP guidelines and harmful to the mission of the encyclopedia. In the future, I recommend that you adhere to WP guidelines and policies while working on controversial articles.Jarhed (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Possibly better refs than ww4report...
The original text under the first bullet point in the OP above looks fairly accurate if 35 is substituted for 250. If some source quoted Halliburton as issuing the usual boilerplate about "...does not constitute an admission of guilt...", that could be added. Also could include something from Cheney's attorney as shown in the CNN article, though it really doesn't the comments really don't say much. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like an approach that will meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. Jusdafax 06:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I also back that approach. Sufdub (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that proposal has not been contested for four days. Could someone follow through and add this suggestion to the article and see if it becomes contested. I am new and cannot change a semi-protected page. If this is against procedure or something, then would someone please suggest how we can get this moving along? Sufdub (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, based on these discussions, I added exactly what was suggested by the outspoken community (once I finally had enough contributions to edit the page). Sufdub (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I for one thank you. Agree that lack of dispute allows you to go ahead and post. The material is well-sourced and belongs in this article. Jusdafax 05:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with the Nigerian mention as it currently stands, thanks for your work.Jarhed (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The editing dispute over the Nigerian story seems to have been "settled" now, but I would like to propose revisiting it briefly. If you look at major media, this story had no lasting "impact" beyond news-of-the-day status. For it to take up a large, full paragraph in a Wikipedia "BLP," which has permanence and is always the top result in a Google web search for "Dick Cheney" makes the article - and by extension - Wikipedia look less credible.
Invoking specific WP policies, it seems to principally violate WP:WEIGHT but also WP:NOTE. Nigeria has systemic corruption, so charges and counter-charges, even by government prosecutors, should be viewed with a grain of salt. They know that Cheney is a public figure, like say Tony Hayward, so naming him in person in an indictment filed 11 years after he left Halliburton is a bit of a publicity stunt to get a larger settlement. Now that the Nigerians have gotten what they wanted, I don't think this story deserves permanent enshrinement in its present form in a BLP.
There are municipalities in Vermont that have issued arrest warrants for Cheney for purported war crimes if he "comes to town," so they can attempt extradition to the Hague. Once again, a publicity stunt to make a point. I vote for excising the Nigerian story completely, or boiling it down to one sentence, and linking to the Halliburton article, which has an appropriate mention. 76.245.26.70 (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
For the reasons you stated, I believe it should be reduced to a single sentence. Drrll (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, done, in the spirit of WP:BOLD. Before anybody gets up in arms that the article has been "scrubbed" of controversy (the old text is just commented out at the moment; at some later date it would be better to remove it entirely to speed up page loading for a very long article), please click on the concluding link to the "Controversies" section of the Halliburton article. 68.15.192.227 (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Health

I feel that Dick's health issues could be better covered. Especially in light of information regarding improvements in treatment for people who have similar conditions; after all he really did go through the mill and yet has been an example of what modern medicine can do. Also, there is perhaps room for more NPOV quotes by respected commentators and political friends and foes who feel that ongoing stress etc from his heart complaints affected Cheney's personality (and possibly judgement)as time went by.Phil Wardle (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Musings and speculation about someone's personality are good examples of what should *not* be in a BLP, and a source would have to be of very high quality, in terms of fact-checking and authoritativeness, to support including such speculation here.Jarhed (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The line "he is alive without a pulse" is uncalled for. Recommendation is to end the sentence after the word pump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkgaza (talk • contribs) 14:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Secretary of Defense: Budgetary practices

As SECDEF, Cheney also ended the Navy's A12 Avenger program, which after seven years (1984-1991) had not produced even a prototype. It was a program unwanted by officials during the Reagan admin. (SECNAV Lehman, CNO) but funded anyway by Congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.52 (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Secure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.70.120.242 (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Source 17, The Nation, Cheney military record

The Nation is a subscription service. Source can not be accessed. 97.71.73.46 (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Expanding the Introduction

As the article currently stands, the introductory section seems only to go into detail of events prior to 2000. It references his role in the first Operation Desert Storm, his time at Haliburton ect. yet contains absolutely nothing about the major events of his vice-presidency. As this is the role he is most known for, it seems strange that his entire eight years spent there is confined to a single sentance stating he "served served as the 46th Vice President of the United States under George W. Bush". Kernsters (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Irish ancestry

As referenced in the main article, he is of Irish descent. May I propose the addition of an "American people of Irish descent" category allied with the other ones, that refer to his French, Welsh and English heritage? It seems strange that it is omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.243.44 (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add the category Category:American hunters

Adding category American hunters [[Category: 101.161.38.174 (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? I don't see the point. ViriiK (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with ViriiK that the "American hunter" category seems inappropriate. A category like that is meant for someone famed for their hunting, not a politician who happens to occasionally go hunting. Ashbrook Station (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the "American hunter" category seems highly appropriate. The first half, American and the second half, Hunter, both seem to match the information supported in this article. Those who disagree, please state why he is (A) Less American than More American, and (B) A "non-hunter" rather than "a hunter" after reading this article.

Twillisjr (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Military Service

Is it really necessary to include a "Military Service" box only for it to read "none"? 68.56.192.70 (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Removed inapplicable parameter from generic infobox. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for editing the infobox so that it no longer reads "Chickenhawk"

Twillisjr (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Neoconservatism

I've been speaking with a few political figures about Neoconservatism, and it seems Dick Cheney was an important member of this movement. Has anyone located supporting evidence of this comment?

Twillisjr (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


"In 2011 Cheney published his memoir In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir, written with wife Lynne Cheney, and is often cited as the most powerful Vice President in American history.[6][7]" This is poorly written. The book is cited as the most powerful V.P., Lynn or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.171.18 (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Blackwater

Why is all information about Cheney and his relationship with (Academi / Xe / Blackwater) missing? A VP profiting from a war, from a private firm hired to be mercenaries in Iraq should be at least noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.108.48 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

redundancy

Is it really necessary to say Whittington was taken "to Corpus Christie Memorial Hospital in Corpus Christie" under the hunting incident section? Small issue, but I can't change it myself. Inhuman5 (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the redundancy. Primogen (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Iran-Contra committee

The article merely says that "Cheney was the Ranking Member of the Select Committee to investigate the Iran-Contra Affair." It makes no mention of his minority report for that committee, in which he argued that there are literally no legal limits on what the President of the United States can do in regard to foreign policy. 75.76.213.161 (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Iraq War

Goethean has added see also sections for Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection and Niger uranium forgeries. Which I removed and replaced with Iraq War. Obviously a See Also to the Iraq War is a logical choice, but I don't understand the others. Mohamed Atta is not mentioned in the Iraq War section, and that article has only a mention of Cheney saying that Atta met al-Ani in Prague and then stating a few days later that the CIA was unable to confirm it. Furthermore, the Iraq section is within the First VP Term and this particular incident occurred in his second VP term. I don't understand why Goethean feels that this is important or relevant to Cheney's larger role regarding the Iraq War. The Niger Uranium Forgeries are even less connected. That article refers to Cheney as being the focus of a deliberate entrapment against Cheney. I ask Goethean to explain why he feels this should be included and what he had against the Iraq War see also. Arzel (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"I had other priorities in the '60s than military service"

The source for this quote is an opinion piece by liberal columnist E.J. Dionne. Nobody has a problem with that? 174.71.70.22 (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly E.J. Dionne is a pretty partisan opinion writer and normally this would be an issue for a BLP. However, this particular statement (although sourced to Dionne), appears to be pretty true. A quick search has that quote attributed to him from several sources. However, I do have a less partisan source which I will include instead. Arzel (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dick_Cheney/Archive_5&oldid=1136661886"