Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Psychic Profiles | 05/21/2009 8:00 am

What Is Dick Cheney Thinking? Peggy Rometo Speaks

Why is the former vice president compelled to defend the CIA interrogation policies? What does he think of the Obama administration? wowOwow’s Psychic Intuitive provides insight.
By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© Getty Images

Former Vice President Dick Cheney spent much of his eight years in office working in private locations and away from the media spotlight. Now, Cheney has become one of the most outspoken defenders of the national security policies imposed under former President George W. Bush’s administration. As Cheney continues to remain a powerful voice about the need for the CIA’s use of controversial anti-terrorism policies, including the highly debated tactic of waterboarding, wowOwow reached out to Psychic Intuitive Peggy Rometo to better understand one of the most mysterious political figures.

wOw: Why is Dick Cheney spearheading a media campaign to sell his past policies to the American people?

Peggy Rometo: He thinks that it is his personal duty to protect America, and feels justified in defending his political point of view. The impulse to protect America is ingrained in him; it’s part of who he is. This mandate began during his time as secretary of defense under Bush No. 1 — and now, it’s become more than a position. It’s a core belief.

He likes Obama personally, and finds him a formidable political adversary. But he feels he's opening us up to danger ...

wOw: Do either Dick Cheney or George W. Bush have regrets about implementing torture in the past?

Peggy: Cheney has none. He feels adamant that he defended the country and did what was necessary to ensure the safety of America. Bush also feels no remorse, but he comes to this conclusion from a different stance. In essence, he sanctioned these policies because he felt they needed to be in place to protect the country from another 9/11. But as somebody who had very little experience with the military, he didn’t feel entirely comfortable with hearing the details. He was happy to delegate these decisions to Cheney and Rumsfeld, the military experts on his team.

wOw: What is Cheney’s relationship with Bush now?

Peggy: They continue to remain close confidants. Cheney still considers him a friend and ally, and feels it’s necessary to protect the office he held, rather than the individual who held it. He feels compelled to manage the press coverage of their past policies, which Bush is more than happy to leave to Cheney, his military expert. This works out well, since Cheney secretly fears that Bush would say too much or not articulate their position correctly, were he being grilled by the press. In the end, Bush is "over it."

wOw: How does George W. Bush feel about the media hoopla over past torture policies?

Peggy: Bush wishes it would all just die down, and doesn’t want to be in the hot seat on this issue. After all, he reasons, it wasn’t his plan; Cheney and his team formulated it, and all he did was approve it. Therefore, he sees Cheney as the natural spokesperson to field this conversation. Instead of focusing on yesterday, he wants the country to pay attention to what is happening today by being aware of current threats to our national security. But ultimately, he just wants everyone to let the whole thing go.

wOw: What about Cheney?

Peggy: He feels outraged that people are so naïve, and livid that nobody is giving him credit for having had the courage to do what it took to protect our country. He feels that people don’t have a clue about the threat we’ve been under, and that the administration purposely didn’t tell us everything they knew so we could sleep at night. Cheney is speaking out because he wants people to be aware of the intelligence that led to his policies, and he’d do it again. He wants Americans to wake up and be on guard. This is a personal mission for him; he doesn’t believe we may be under a threat, he knows it.

wOw: How does Dick Cheney feel about the Obama administration?

232 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Andrea Brandon
I wonder if anyone ever checked his net worth BEFORE he became VP and a year ago? MIght be interesting.
By Andrea Brandon on 05/21/2009 4:21 pm
Martha Vinyard

Thank goodness we still have men like Mr Cheney who will sacrifice themselves to do what is best for the country.

We ask ourselves, "Why are there no good people in politics"?

The answer my friend is blowing like a foul breeze through these very pages. Who else, but a true patriot would put up with the character assassins and assorted whack jobs to do what they think best for the U.S.A.?

 Dick Cheney/Joe Horn 2012!

 

By Martha Vinyard on 05/21/2009 2:52 pm
caj p
Cheney sacrificed himself how exactly?   With all the deferments he had and had no clue about combat and you call him a true patriot you must be drinking the Kool Aid there I think!!!!  He was a coward and still is, easy to send off other people’s kid to war when you have never seen service yourself or had your own child sent to war either nothing patriotic with this creature just a coward pure and simple!!!
By caj p on 05/21/2009 3:15 pm
~ countrywoman ~
Mr. Vinyard, how curious that some consider Cheney to be a "true patriot."  SACRIFICE HIMSELF??  What a concept!  Sacrifice his country to salvage his shredded reputation is how it looks to most of us.  Interesting ticket you propose, both famous for shooting someone.  Perfect!
By ~ countrywoman ~ on 05/22/2009 1:06 am
mitzi morris

Did Cheney,Bush & Co keep us safe after being warned that Bin Laden presented an imminent threat?  The failure to respond to the Nat’l Security Estimates was dereliction of duty & incompetence ,and by not following  up allowed  the Pres. &  the FBI and CIA failures that led to an attack that could have been averted.  The head of Security at the WTC had given several strong warnings that an attack was a real and present danger. But Bushco was in denial along with Rice and Cheney [our protector].

So now the FearMeister in chief, Dick Cheney spreads poison and fear to justify the Iraq war which has not made us safer. Afghanistan is now a more dangerous mess than ever. We all know that an attack on the US most probably at some time can happen. Cheney’s strategy is to cover his butt, and lay the groundwork for saying, "I told you Obama was weak on National Defense and terrorism. Just like all those socialist democrats".  See?

Spreading his usual pile of fear and loathing is the Cheney mantra, flogged on by Lynne and mentored by daughter, this 5 time deferrment seeking Cheney has the stones to talk about Uberpatriotism? Neither has either daughter put in any military time. This soldier of doom,torture,murder,war, and er…national security decided not to go to a single military call for duty. 

We all know that the incompetence from the Bush government has led to disaster in all aspects, plus the derailment of our financial system which they have blindly allowed to run amok without safeguards or regulation,restraints, or the rule of law.

Hitler and Stalin knew that when people are hurting,broke and angry, the best way to seize power and control is to slog FEAR. It is also a superb tool in hiding incompetence and blame placing.

 

 

 

 

By mitzi morris on 05/21/2009 3:04 pm
caj p
Cheney is just a coward who has no problem with sending off other people’s kids to war when he hadn’t got the guts to go and his child didn’t go either, he is just despicable!!
By caj p on 05/21/2009 3:20 pm
laureen f
Don’t forget…these ‘kids’ volunteered…alot of them on 9/12/01….
By laureen f on 05/21/2009 7:39 pm
Mahulda Fite

"Hitler and Stalin knew that when people are hurting,broke and angry, the best way to seize power and control is to slog FEAR. It is also a superb tool in hiding incompetence and blame placing."

Interesting analysis, but it sounds more like a summation of President Obama’s first 100 days to me. While he talks one way, he does the opposite and blatantly makes one unconstitutional move after another in order to amass power all while assuring us he is looking out for our best interests. Soon there will be no freedom, no liberty and no way out for America.

By Mahulda Fite on 05/21/2009 8:26 pm
Zera Lee

You certainly have it backwards, Mahulda. Bush and Cheney were dedicated to amassing presidential power and undermining our rights and liberties. Cheney has worked for decades to overextend the power of the presidency beyond that allowed by the Constitution. He also made that ridiculous claim that the VP was not part of the Administration just to dodge record-keeping laws. Bush violated the very principle of rule-of-law by claiming that some implied authority of the commander-in-chief allowed him to ignore specific written law, a law that explicitly stated that it was the exclusive authority on the matter (FISA). Bush defied the “advise and consent” clause in the Constitution on several occasions. He suspended Habeus Corpus in violation of the Constitution. There’s more, but you get the idea.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Violation of FISA, abuse of security letters, Hatch Act violations, politicization of the DoJ, railroading the “PATRIOT Act” (an incredible misnomer) through Congress virtually unread, ReadID. So many ways they used fear to limit or eliminate hard-won rights and liberties in the name of national security. Each time, a surrender to terrorism. Each outrage committed with the full support of the republican party. A major factor in Obama’s election was to stop the republican march toward tyranny. I don’t know what you think you might lose that was not already taken by Bush/Cheney. They were also advocates of American domination. Hegemony, not imperialism. I think.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

When Bush/Cheney were trying to win the 2004 election, fear mongering was their most effective tactic. Announcing vague threats, raising and lowering the threat alert level, propaganda to make people believe that Democrats could not keep America safe. After they won the election, they switched to wanting Americans to feel safe. They stopped bouncing the threat level around. According to Cheney, they suppressed threat information because they wanted us to feel safe. Then the 2008 election came around and they wanted us to be afraid again, only this time we were more afraid of their failed economic policies and tired of their indecisive military efforts. Now they have reversed themselves again as Cheney leads the fear-mongering both to defend his use of torture and to undermine confidence in Democrats, a destructively partisan effort.

Personally, I am relieved to have the Constitution restored. I do not mind that he adjusts to changing conditions. I would be worried if he tried to push through plans that were months out of sync with current conditions.

So just what do you think Obama has done in violation of the Constitution? He is a Constitutional lawyer, he knows the Constitution better than you or I. There is no one better suited to protecting and defending the Constitution. I hear a lot of whining from the GOP faithful, but no specific accusations.

By Zera Lee on 05/22/2009 12:04 pm
Mahulda Fite

You cite to me where in the Constitution the executive branch is given the power to dictate to the private sector—to fire CEO’s, to take over car companies and ignore contracts that give the shareholders their rights to their investments through bankrupcy proceedings? He is using our tax dollars to take control of private sector industries—banks, car companies and soon the health sector— and this is exactly the opposite intent of the founders. The Constitution was to protect the people from a power grab like this. The Government has no business or authority under the Constitution to nationalize the private sector.

He is not a "Constitutional Lawyer"—when did he litigate in front of the Supreme Court? He may have taught Constitutional law but he apparently doesn’t either understand the Constitution or he is blatantly ignoring it. He has spoken before about the constrictions the Constitution places on folks like him who want to "remake America". Unfortunately, he is not being challenged. Some of the laws that Congress is passing and hope to pass should be challenged for their constitutionality.

By Mahulda Fite on 05/23/2009 10:35 pm
Zera Lee

Now you are starting to sound like Bachmann when she questioned Geitner. The right-wing spin-meisters claimed he was sweating bullets or some such drivel, but he was really just astounded by the ignorance of her questions.

His answer to her, and my answer to you, is that the authority comes from the United States Code, as duly enacted under the Constitution.

While our Founding Fathers would not have intended for the government to take such direct action toward a company, they also never envisioned a company growing so large that it could threaten the well-being of the entire country. Private business bears no responsibility to work for the good of society, that is the role of government. The government exists, in part, to protect the citizens from the excesses, failures, irresponsibilities, and abuses of businesses.

Some businesses and industries have become so systemic that their failure would deeply harm our society. We have become so dependent on them that we cannot allow them to fail. Only an infusion of money could save them, and only the federal government had the means and the responsibility to do so. But we cannot just give money away with no strings attached, that would create it’s own set of hazards. Bailing out a company that clings to the same policies and practices that produced failure would not help the economy.

He has not seized control of anything, he has exercised the authority that has always come from a major infusion of money - that is a feature of capitalism. In each instance, he has left the corporate structure in place along with an exit route for the government. He has never expressed any desire for the government to take up permanent residence, he has stated the opposite…repeatedly.

What Obama has done is not without precedent and consistent with the Constitutional mandate to promote the general welfare. He is not a captain of industry, as the republicans would have us fear, he is merely an acting harbor pilot. That he has introduced “moral hazard” and “personal responsibility” to CEOs and others who have remained immune to such things for so long is a good thing.

It is also good for the country that he has laid out a roadmap to future American competitiveness and prosperity. This is something that corporate America could never do on it’s own, and we do not have the luxury of waiting for them to stumble into the future through a minefield of special interests.

If you had taken Obama’s course on Constitutional Law, then you would probably understand why he is not being challenged.

By Zera Lee on 06/02/2009 3:27 pm
julie browne
It worries me to think that Obama is now the guy with his finger on the button.  Will he really push it if the time comes, or will he try to talk to them while the missiles are raining down on us all??  At least with Cheney and Bush, you knew that they would keep us safe, I am not so sure with this guy, he is too busy meeting with football teams/basket ball players/golfers/having $100 per plate steak at his Wednesday nite knees ups.  He is a celebrity president, not a hands on keep us all safe president.  I also sure wish he would stop apologizing for this country.  We have done nothing to apologize for, so quit it, it makes us look like dorks, pure and simple.  Just another aside, show us your birth certificate.
By julie browne on 05/21/2009 3:52 pm
Libra Lady
Julie….perfect….you said it well…thank you.
By Libra Lady on 05/21/2009 4:36 pm
~ countrywoman ~

"celebrity president…..apologizing…..BIRTH CERTIFICATE??"

Groan.  President Obama is working his backside off to clean up the mess and keep us safe.  I am so sorry that the constant malicious spin causes folks to worry about, and continue repeating, such manufactured non-issues.  And p.s…. following 9/11, some of us NEVER thought Bush/Cheney knew the first thing about how to keep us safe.  

 

By ~ countrywoman ~ on 05/21/2009 10:57 pm
Zera Lee

Missiles? What missiles?

N. Korea?
They cannot afford a conventional war, and they’d have a hard time reaching as far as Alaska even if we let them, which we would never do. Their missiles are political bargaining chips, though they make the Japanese understandably nervous.
Iran
They cannot reach us with their missiles. They can certainly reach some of our allies, but that is not “raining down on us all”.
China?
They have too much invested in here, their economy would collapse if they attacked us. They have no incentive to attack.
Russia?
They could, but they have no reason to. They have been building up their military for limited confrontations, not all-out war. The biggest threat they pose to us is in energy, not conquest.

While we do face other threats, nobody is going to be attacking us with missiles. That is just neocon fear-mongering.

Of course, it is your Constitutional right to be just as afraid as you like. I prefer to embrace “the land of the free and the home of the brave”.

If you do not think we have anything to apologize for:

  • take another look at the Abu Ghraib pictures.
  • remember our unauthorized rendition flights through the airspace of allies.
  • consider why Bush had the goodwill of the entire planet on 9/12, but was disliked almost everywhere but parts of Africa by the time he left office.
  • investigate how Bush trampled EU privacy laws.
  • look into how Bush saddled the EU with the Microsoft anti-trust trials because he wouldn’t clean up that mess internally.
  • check out how Bush reneged on transferring control of Top Level Domains (TLD).
  • try to estimate just how much damage the Bush deal with India did to the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
  • think about the backlash from blowing off the Geneva Conventions, the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, Amnesty International, and other international humanitarian groups.
  • make a list of all the dictators we propped up.
  • recognize how Big Oil decided who would be rich and who would be poor via their lease negotiations - and how they took merciless advantage of some countries.

If we are to get along with other countries in this ever-shrinking world, we must be aware of how they view us - the good and the bad. To do otherwise would be arrogant and foolish. Much like the GOP.

By Zera Lee on 05/22/2009 2:25 pm