Jump to content

Talk:Dick Cheney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.168.207.237 (talk) at 17:13, 12 August 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleDick Cheney has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
January 21, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Template:Conservatism SA

Wikiganda=

Seriously. I understand that no one wants Wikipedia to devolve into libel and flame wars, but this man is widely considered by millions of people to be one of the most evil human beings of the last fifty years, and yet there is nary a mention of anything in this article. Likewise for figures like Donald Rumsfeld. They perpetrated a conflict that was unnecessary and resulted in the loss of millions of lives. Being fair and balanced is one thing, avoiding points of view is one thing. Denying humanity is quite another.

Untitled

Hey I guess someone will fix this. He couldn't have been one of Reagans "early" supporters. April 1980? I'd consider now to be "early". Someone just endorsed Rick Perry the other day. Thats early. The Reagan equivalent to early would be closer to september of 79. You guys(wikipedia) made it hard to edit. I tried this one time back in like 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.76.225 (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I reviewed the Nigeria warrant edit and right now it looks pretty NPOV to me. Thanks.Jarhed (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I have additionally updated the issue. Jusdafax 09:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please continue this discussion at the disputed content section below.--Jarhed (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
That sounds like an approach that will meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. Jusdafax 06:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also back that approach. Sufdub (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
For the reasons you stated, I believe it should be reduced to a single sentence. Drrll (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Edit suggestion

Perhaps change "Criticisms of Obama" to "Criticisms of Barack Obama". It just seems more encyclopedic to me, especially for people who come to the page especially to find out about his criticisms of Obama. I know there are really no other Obama's he'd criticise, but it just seems more appropriate. Ignore it if you want, just a suggestion. 60.234.236.221 (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edit request from 69.72.27.200, 9 May 2011

wash post mon 11 may 2011 dick cheney with end stage heart disease considering heart transplant see washpost for complete info

69.72.27.200 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPI is reporting on current statements by Cheney. There doesn't appear to be much of anything that is new: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/05/Cheney-may-seek-heart-transplant/UPI-44151294243041/.Jarhed (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Edit request from Amlorusso, 1 September 2011

Reference 68 has a dead link. Archive.org has the page at: http://web.archive.org/web/20100412120227/http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm Amlorusso (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done and correctly I hope. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism/war crimes allegations

My recent addition was removed here, for BLP and recentism. I understand this is a high profile GA-class BLP article, but per WP:PRESERVE, I've included the deleted section here on the Talk page, in case elements of it might be deemed useful, by editors, in some other form?

Criticism of Dick Cheney
In August 2011, Lawrence Wilkerson, a former aide to Colin Powell, claimed that Cheney feared being tried as a war criminal, for his role in approving waterboarding and other controversial interrogation techniques.Grier, Peter (31 August 2011). "Might Dick Cheney really be tried for war crimes?". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 24 September 2011. During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Cheney dismissed Wilkerson's claim, while stating that he accepts that "there are a lot of people out there who don't like me, don't like what I did in public life, disagree fundamentally with my views."Jackson, David (4 September 2011). "Cheney: War crimes claim is 'cheap shot'". USA Today. Retrieved 24 September 2011.
In September 2011, prior to a visit by the former vice president to Vancouver, Human Rights Watch called upon the Canadian government to bring criminal charges against Cheney under the terms of the Convention Against Torture for the alleged torture of Canadian citizens Maher Arar and Omar Khadr."Prosecute Dick Cheney for torture, human-rights group tells Ottawa". Globe and Mail. Canadian Press. 24 September 2011. Retrieved 24 September 2011.

I see from the Talk page archives that there have been some other attempts or suggestions to add content on possible war crimes charges. I do believe that this issue isn't going to just go away, and like the issue raised in Henry_Kissinger#Controversy, it will have some kind of lasting notability, but I admit that may be WP:CRYSTAL on my part, for now. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I agree with the need for this section, and applaud you for creating it. I hereby call for the return of the section to the article. This is not a matter of POV, it is a matter of fact. Jusdafax 02:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks but in fairness to Fat&Happy, I can see that undue weight and recentism have to be taken into account. Cheney is a public figure and has been criticized by many, and Wilkerson's claim is just that. Human Rights Watch's call for arrest is just a PR stunt: I doubt the Canadian government, which has been closely linked to Bush/Cheney, will even acknowledge it. Now, if a sovereign state actually charges him in absentia somewhere, I think there'd be no question of adding that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I agree. Jusdafax 03:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Canada's Official Opposition," a single MP i.e. Don Davies hardly strengthens the case substantially. – Lionel (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Davies is more than just a "single MP": he is the Official Opposition's Immigration Critic, which means that he is the Official Opposition counterpart to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney in the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet (Canada), where he and his colleagues are responsible for "disseminating the party's policy positions." Just as Kenny speaks for the government on immigration matters, Davies will speak on behalf of the Official Opposition. I keep stressing the "official" part of that because as Official Opposition (Canada) states, "it is also generally viewed as the alternative government or "government in waiting". Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, a lot of editors have worked hard to keep criticism integrated into the whole of the article instead of starting a "Criticism" section, a practice that is discouraged by WP guideline, so I consider your original edit to be of poor quality and poorly considered, and revertable on that basis alone. Second, there is a lot, and I do mean a *lot*, of criticism about Cheney as a "war criminal", almost all of which is political rhetoric that has no place in a BLP. Any edit to introduce such language as this into a BLP must have impeccable sourcing from multiple RSs. So far as I understand the proposal, the report is political speech from an opposition party, and so far does not appear to be notable enough to rise to the standard of BLP reliable sources.Jarhed (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would appreciate an acknowledgement that you understand the gravity of the charge that is being made here. Forget this or that election, "war criminal" is a term reserved for some of the most monsterous acts in human history. This is a very high bar that you are trying to jump.Jarhed (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do understand the gravity. And I can appreciate why this has been flagged with the activepol banner. I never stated that Mr. Cheney is a war criminal, only that I felt that the level of international accusations of same were approaching notability. I also felt that the article might be adapted to reflect what a divisive figure he is -- as Mr. Cheney himself admits in the Fox News quote. But I'm glad that this article is being watched by competent and mature editors, with the best interests of WP in mind, and I don't intend to pursue this. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and I assure you that I am doing my best to be an NPOV contributor to this article. I want Cheney's public actions to be thoroughly documented in accordance with WP guidelines and BLP policies.Jarhed (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel that international (and national) accusations against Cheney of war criminality have reached a point of notability for the article. Jusdafax 05:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also understand the gravity. But since Cheney has been indicted (and even convicted in absentia), leaving this information out of the article seems partisan and US centric. See Canada, Belgium, Malasya, and the definition of warcrimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.152.37 (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't he have 7 grandchildren by now? 5 from his elder daughter and two from his younger daughter? cheers, erter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.24.13 (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add the category

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

Why? I don't see the point. ViriiK (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Fat&Happy reverted my edit that simply stated Cheney's conflict of interest via his financial ties to Haliburton (a major contractor in Iraq). So I propose the following, unfortunately much longer, version:

Although unexercised stock options and deferred salary "are among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer", Cheney insisted that his unexercised stock options and deferred salary from Haliburton were not financial ties that constituted a conflict of interest while Vice-President of The United States of America.

That's using the same CBS citation as before. The other citation (from a video documentary) isn't really necessary but it already existed on the Cheney page before I touched it. Fat&Happy deems it not reliable even though it seems to meet the Wikipedia requirements for reliability. The director made Xanadu (yes, the movie starring Olivia Newton-John) but has gone on to make political documentaries. Any question of bias in these documentaries is irrelevant because Wikipedia states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective".

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not knowledgeable enough to fix this but something is wrong...

The article says he's the 47th president of the united state and I think barak obama is like the 44th or something, it also says he's been the president from 2001 - 2009 which is also totally wrong... I don't know anything about dick cheney but if this information is wrong I wonder what else is... DreamWings (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: I think you're confusing president with vice president. Everything seems right to me. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Service protection

Does anyone know in reputable sources if Cheney still has Secret Service protection and if not, when it was ended? 74.69.9.224 (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2013

Please keep "attended the University of Wyoming where he earned a BA in Political Science" Please change "attended the Univ. of Wyoming where he earned ..... an MA in Political Science" to Univ. of Wisconsin. This info is available in the the bestselling book "Angler" by Barton Gellman. 204.195.110.27 (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)GRW[reply]

Not done: A quick Google search gives me a great many sources that disagree with you, not to mention the source cited in the article which includes a quote from Cheney. --ElHef (Meep?) 02:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add book review

saying a group is a "positive" influence is not the same as supporting the group

Nuff said -- the use of having him be quoted as saying that, among other groups, the Tea Party is a net positiove for the Republican Party is not sufficient by a mile to list him as "associated" with the Tea Party, nor is it sufficient to assert he "publically supports" it either. Collect (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dick_Cheney&oldid=620939704"