Cheney tells senator to "fuck off" over Halliburtion comments

[Kingboy_D]

A spokesman for Cheney confirmed there was a "frank exchange of views"

[Auntie Ovipositor]

Such a charmer, that Dick.

From Salon.com:

The "frank exchange" translated

When we hear a political conversation described as a "frank exchange of views," we think of two sober-minded individuals talking seriously to one another, making their best cases for their respective positions.

But when those words are used in the Bush White House, they apparently mean that somebody got an old fashion, Texas-style ass-chewin'. A spokesman for Dick Cheney told reporters Thursday that the vice president had just engaged in a "frank exchange of views" with Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy. What he meant, it now seems, is that Cheney told Leahy to "fuck" himself.

This insight into the meaning of "frank exchange of views" sheds new light on all sorts of Bush-Cheney conversations from the past. Wonder why the Arab world has been so wary of the President's war on terror? Maybe it's because Cheney went to the Middle East in 2002 for what a senior administration official called a "frank exchange of views"with Arab leaders.

Puzzled by the lack of international support for the war on Iraq? Maybe it's because Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has had such a "frank exchange of views" with his counterparts from other nations.

Once you understand the code -- "frank exchange of views" = "go fuck youself" -- even the strange syntax of George W. Bush himself begins to make sense. Immediately after meeting with South Korean President Kim Dae-Jung in Seoul in 2002, Bush told reporters that their conversation had been "so good that we didn't want to go into the meeting room where there was more people." Now the reason seems clear: Before they stepped before the cameras, Bush said, the leaders had a "very frank exchange."

-- Tim Grieve

[Ambient Sheep]

Odd that Salon.com have only just realised what "frank exchange" actually means...

[The Mumps]

I expressed myself in an aggressive manner, and I enjoyed it

Totally unapologetic, as ever. You could apply that quote to his entire political career really. Evil maniac.

[chand]

I do wish politicians would swear more, though. You can tell when they're around the table on Question Time listening to someone from another party smugly trying to make a laboured point he'd got out of the Daily Mail editorial that morning that they're just itching to go 'Oh fuck off' instead of having to compose a balanced and neatly-worded retort.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBDP9DE2WD.html

This is hilarious as well.

[Pinball]

I expressed myself in an aggressive manner, and I enjoyed it

Totally unapologetic, as ever. You could apply that quote to his entire political career really. Evil maniac.

Evil maniac is spot on. The guy's a dangerous psychopathic nutter. The level of conflict of interest of US politicians has reached biblical proportions (quite literally given they invaded the cradle of humanity). We need a professional political class devoid of industry links (and if any are found they are prosecuted). Anything short of this would be inadequate. The rise and rise of corporate power has forced such a change. No other group in society is so subverted. I don't go to my GP and get force-fed cigarettes due to his tobacco company-sponsored palatial practice and consequent indebtedness. Thus why should politicians pursue crazy and non-commonsense policies for clear industrial reasons, particularly when teenage British soldiers are dying as a result!!!!?? As always, it's the poor, young and ill-educated who suffer the most. The ruling elite just sit pretty and smile at the TV cameras.

[Artemis]

Would you say no industry links at all, Pinball, or just no industry links that conflict with their brief in government? It'll be hard in working practice to find politicians who have no industry links or are willing to give them all up when they take office. I certainly agree with you on principle, but in practice suggest that maybe it should only be industry links that are conflicting with their job as a politician that should be dissolved, and further still they should not be offered the job until these are dissolved first, ie. a conflict of interest would automatically disqualify Mr. X from applying in the first place.

[Pinball]

I agree that it's good for politicians to have a background in business. Too many - like Blair - are lawyers and have no concept whatsoever of good business practice. A minimum reasonable requirement, as you allude to, would be that they dissolve all business links as a pre-requisite for taking political office. So people like Kenneth Clarke - with at least 7 directorships - would have to give those up. Apart from the conflict of interest issues, how can someone like that do their public job properly from a time management perspective? Clearly they can't.

The other issue is lobbying and party funding. Realistically, it would never be possible to disengage politicians adequately from business (i.e. to be objective and "independent") - Bush isn't employed by any companies yet clearly acts on behalf of a few! However, if party funding was via taxation only, with company donations banned, then this would help. I would also propose that the level of funding be kept to a minimum. In the US, Bush has a huge campaign fund so can brainwash the US public with paid-for advertising, presumably more than the Democrats as he has more money to spend. If both parties had a small, fixed funding from the State, that would end that particular spinmeister bit of bull.

More broadly, I believe direct political influence over health and education policy (as a starter) should be ended, with independent bodies to take it over. Clearly, these areas have been severely damaged by governmental short-termism, having "radical" new policies (which have to deliver within an electoral time-frame) introduced every couple of years. Instead, why not have independent, objective control from experts (i.e. not politicians, who after all are largely lawyers with no knowledge of health or education!). Is it too much to ask for educationalists to control education??? A good analogy IMO is the Bank of England now having independent control over the base rate. This has worked well, and surely is the way to go?

So to summarise, I believe we need:

1. Professionalisation of the political class (= no directorships or other "extra jobs" while employed by the State).

2. Party funding only from the State and kept at a low level.

3. Independent (non-political) control over sectors such as health and education, with politicians only broadly guiding the principles of strategy according to their electoral mandate.

In short, we need to make the business of policy-making more rational and evidence-based, and less influenced by corporations. After all, what's the point of voting for politicians if, at the end of the day, business money has more influence? That's anti-democratic.

[MojoJojo]

I agree that it's good for politicians to have a background in business. Too many - like Blair - are lawyers and have no concept whatsoever of good business practice. A minimum reasonable requirement, as you allude to, would be that they dissolve all business links as a pre-requisite for taking political office. So people like Kenneth Clarke - with at least 7 directorships - would have to give those up. Apart from the conflict of interest issues, how can someone like that do their public job properly from a time management perspective? Clearly they can't.

Hmm, of course, I think America already has laws along those lines, and it seems to make sod all difference. And on a time management basis, surely if they can't do their job, they would be voted out on that basis. You do say that dissovling business contracts doesn't help entirely.

More broadly, I believe direct political influence over health and education policy (as a starter) should be ended, with independent bodies to take it over. Clearly, these areas have been severely damaged by governmental short-termism, having "radical" new policies (which have to deliver within an electoral time-frame) introduced every couple of years.:

Hmm, interesting... I can't think of a convincing reason not to do this. I guess the main reason politicians aren't to keen on it is the loss of power, and the embarassment of having groups calling "More money!" everytime election time comes round. And who would be choosen to run the organisation.
But apart from that, it is a jolly good idea, and I can't see what problem an honest politician would have against it.

[Pinball]

I can't see what problem an honest politician would have against it.

That's the problem ;-)