Wednesday, March 18, 2009

John King Interviews Dick Cheney

Obama inherited a big mess. Do you agree with that? Cheney says it was global not limited to the Bush Administration. Does that make sense to you?

Is Cheney different from Limbaugh in wishing Obama well? Or is Cheney just more political in describing the same thing. Is it true that Obama's administration is expanding government? Wasn't it Bush who did that with the executive privilege and Patriot Act?

John King asked if Obama is brazenly trying to deceive. Did Cheney agree? I think he did, but I wasn't sure. Did you like his response to the tough questions about the statistical record of the Bush administration? The economic crisis is global, he repeated, it cannot be blamed on Bush. Do you agree with that?

Do you agree with his analysis of the situation in Iraq? Was Saddam Hussein one of the worst dictators of the 20th century? Obama has modified his campaign position and that's a plus. Agree? Do you think it's true that to move from low-enriched uranium to high-enriched uranium is easy? Doesn't that sound like more of those scare tactics?


  1. I think Dick Cheney never lied about being a Marine.

  2. "Is it true that Obama's administration is expanding government?"

    Absolutely! Bush did as well though. He was hardly a small-government Conservative.

    Obama is expanding government like we haven't seen since FDR and he's spending money like no President we've ever seen.

  3. Do you think it's true that to move from low-enriched uranium to high-enriched uranium is easy?

    depends on what you mean by "easy".

    in principle, once you've got the equipment to enrich U at all, enriching it highly is just a matter of running the partly-enriched stuff through the factory several more times over until it's as enriched as you'd like.

    in practice, enriching U at all takes a great deal of effort. "low"-enriched product suitable for power generation has a few percent of U-235 (as opposed to less than one percent in natural U); "high"-enriched metal suitable for weapons has better than 90% U-235.

    these are resource-intensive processes; the more so the higher enriched your end product has to be, and also more intensive the more end product you need.

    it's "easy" if you've got the resources and money to put up some highly technical, energy-intensive process industry and then run that plant for a while. if you're seriously planning on building and running a nuclear power plant, then in comparison to that, i suppose it could be called "easy".

    not something anybody does in their back yard, however, and if you let the IAEA visit your installation --- as Iran has theirs, for instance --- they can and will easily tell whether you're making reactor fuel or bomb material. the difference in effort is sufficient to give your end product away.

    see also this blog, whose contributors have collectively forgotten more about nuclear power and nuclear weaponry --- either one --- than i've ever known about both topics together.

  4. "Obama has modified his campaign position and that's a plus. Agree?"

    Sorry but this made me laugh. Obama has "modified" pretty much all of his campaign positions. The man has no integrity and he's a liar. Typical politician.

  5. Mike W., Are you a Libertarian? I'm just asking, I hope you don't mind.