Dick Cheney had a heart?

Stunned at the news that Cheney has had a heart transplant, because I always assumed he was a heartless bastard. I wonder if they ascertained whether it was a democratic or republican donor?

If I offered to be a donor and then from the Great Beyond found out someone like that got my bits, I would demand their return!

19 thoughts on “Dick Cheney had a heart?

    • I am afraid that I feel that Dick Cheney is one of the main reasons why so many people have died in Afghanistan and Iraq (on both sides), and it will all be for nothing in the end. I do not think we had valid reasons to go to war in either country. I am also interested to know if someone without medical insurance can get a heart transplant? In Australia they would.

      Like

      • Someone without medical insurance can get a heart transplant. Well…thats not entirely true. What usually happens in the US when someone needs a transplant and they are without insurance is that they eventually get on one of the LONG established government insurance plans. Medicaid or Medicare. Yup. We have Government sponsored insurance for those who qualify. After that they stay on Medicaid so that all their antirejection meds are covered etc. I admit, I had the exact same reaction you did. And my mother, especially also did. My wonderment is to how he got his heart and was he on the Transplant list as long as others?

        Like

      • Regardless of Cheney’s controversial role in going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s a stretch for me to see that he was unworthy of a heart transplant. He had five heart attacks since the age of 37 and was on a donor list for 20 months before receiving the new heart. No one…here or anywhere else…can just walk in and demand a new heart. Anyone can be on a list, insurance or not.
        Whether we had valid reasons to go to war is going to be argued long after we are gone….but Ratty provides a sound argument for the premise that fighting terrorism is a whole new paradigm. We were attacked in 2001 because we had not challenged previous attacks (Yemen, North Africa, Bali) because of the existing paradigm of “where do we declare war.” It’s my belief that the reason Bush and Cheney were excoriated was that they challenged the old paradigm. That it was messy and mistakes were made is not in question. But they were responding to an attack on American soil. If it had been Sydney, what would you have said?

        Like

        • Martha, I never suggested that he should not get a heart transplant. I did question his politics. As to your Sydney comment, I have often wondered what our reaction would have been had the Towers been in China or Russia, or Nigeria. It does appear to be in the American psyche, and I have to admit it must be in the Australian psyche as well because we follow USA all the way, that we have to invent an “other” to hate or control – Vietnam being one example that comes to mind. One has to wonder why USA was targeted in the very beginning – could exploitation over decades be the answer?

          Like

  1. I’m inclined to the middle ground in this debate. Whatever one may think of US foreign policy, the Twin Towers attack was an act of war and pursuing Bin Laden was justified. The problem with asymetric war such as Afghanistan is knowing how to win quickly and then withdraw. No power can occupy another country for 10 years without being seen as an invader and losing the support of the occupied nation. Afghanistan is a failure due to too little effort in the early stages – had they occupied Tarin Kowt in overwhelming force in 2002, we might not have the mess we have today, where NATO forces will inevitably leave this part of the world less stable than how they found it. Meanwhile, in the back-blocks of the “-stans” ignorant men throw acid into the faces of girls, schools teach religious hatred, and one of the countries has nuclear capability…………………. Ratty.

    Like

    • My dilemma is, how was the attack on the Twin Towers, a horror in every way, but how was it an act of war? It was not a country that attacked but a group of individuals. Yes, they should have all been punished, but isn’t blowing up a car in a market place the same thing? To me, terrorism by groups, is not an act of war. War is national and government supported. We apparently didn’t even know where Osama was and yet we marched off to war. I can’t reconcile the lost lives, soldiers and civilians, as justice. The world is not a safer place after all these years.

      Like

      • I would even argue that the world is now a more dangerous place because sooo many more groups now dislike the US throwing weight/weapons around and are wiling to do whatever it takes to restore their perceived balance of power.

        Like

  2. You raise good points FD, let first apologise for the goldfish brain – Tora Bora where bin laden was, not Tarin Kowt where Australian soldiers are operating. It was an act of war because bin Laden in effect said it was, and we now live in the age of asymetric warfare where fanatics eschew national identity in favour of a pan-national movement (his version of islamic fundamentalism, which some the West have dubbed islamo-fascism). Technology has empowered individuals – enormous destructive power can be unleashed by individuals willing to die for a “cause”, and the global village means such attacks can occur anywhere. What we now have are individual adversaries who unlike nations, are no longer deterred by the idea of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) which set the “rules” of the Cold War. The attack from islamic fundamentalists would appear to verify Samuel Huntingdon’s Clash of Civilisations thesis except for the fact that more people have died due to inter-sect violence than have died confronting the “Christian Crusaders”. In our new era of asymetric warfare which is pan-national, the significance of the nation-state has receded as has the likelihood of formal declarations of war between nations as per the 20th century (of course we barely but a decade into this century and The Rat will be long gone before its end.) Hence the problem of how nation-states act to protect their interests when attacked by forces that challenge their legitimacy and right to exist. It is hard to see how the world’s greatest nation in 2001 could have ignored such an attack. No more than Rome would have in its heyday, and Roman vengeance would have far more devastating. However, I agree with you about the loss of life and feelings of personal safety. But the current conflict model is thus far avoiding the world wars of the 20th century which were far, far worse. Sorry for the length of this. Ratty.

    Like

  3. I didn’t think this was a big deal until I saw the political comments above. Even POTUS was scared of Dick Cheney and deferred to him on matters regarding the war. But I don’t recall Iraq invading us. They never found those WMDs that were supposed to be a threat to world peace. And now we are billions of dollars in debt, and we continue to send millions of wasted dollars to corrupt governments that hate us. I hope Cheney’s new heart awakens his conscience and makes him lie awake every night for the rest of his life.

    Like

  4. Personally I can’t believe that there aren’t younger, more deserving people still awaiting heart transplants.
    Even leaving out that he is a war criminal, the man is 71.

    Like

  5. Pingback: Did Dick Cheney Get Preferential Treatment « This Day – One Day

  6. Pingback: Change of heart | Bell Book Candle

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s