In terms of style, does DICK CHENEY look like a 1940's/50's/60's era movie villian?
929252
goldfinger. except he has multiple heart attacks and shoots people in the face
339048
no hes been a woman in diguise for the last 10-20 years hes probably dressed like a guy now!
1109960
In his day he was considered a very sexy and handsome man. The look was different, women had a different look then too. Marilyn Monroe, Jane Mansfield, Gina Lollobrigida, Sophia Loren. It was a different world in the sixties ( much nicer by the way) and by those standards he was something else!
1075265
naw to me he has a big weird looking face, not to be mean or n e thing!!!!!! but ppl have their own opinions some ppl might think he the finest thing they ever seen!!!!!!!
546287
Don't think so. Looking at him in "Dogma" his nose looks the same.\n\nTry looking and seeing if there are different pics of him on the IMDB maybe. :)
886185
Erect, graceful, confidently arrogant and purposeful. \n\nIf I recall, he's an officer and an educated man. A Gentleman, if you will, an aristocrat. At least that's how I saw him portrayed. \n\nDo not confuse him with post-war Chinese influenced Vietnamese of the north, who will be stiff and mechanical, without the manners of aristocracy.  \n\nDo a Yahoo search on Images for "thuy miss saigon" to see some other portrayals for inspiration. \n\nBest of Luck to you!
1052928
You know, usually Vice Presidents are nearly invisible.\n\nWhen Reagan was President, who even heard a whisper from George W. Bush?\n\nWhat's your problem with Cheney?  He seems like a very hard working and decent man.  I certainly like him better than Rumsfeld, whose annoying way of answering questions reminds me of the character Bill Lumbergh from the movie "Office Space".
118703
Dick Cheneys butt, I think.
254695
Yes! Here's a pic of Patrick Stewart in the 70's with hair. He looks so funny! Maybe that's why he hasn't had hair for a while. I think he looks better without it. \nhttp://www.trekmania.net/conference/behind_scenes/patrick_stewartyoung.jpg
1079926
Vice President Dick Cheney
331225
I agree with his style-- honest, no sugar coating.  I don't think he's sexy because he always wears the same shirt, with his weird manboobs showing.  His haircut is ugly, and his arms look a little hairy.
854562
He does look a little difrent
788988
Well poor dumb George can least have pappy Bush tell everyone how honest he is.  George Senior is either just as stupid or has Alzheimers, but truth is they are both war mongers and they both should have never been allowed to procreate.\n\nIf would have fixed George senior 60 some years ago we wouldn't have the scenario we have today.\n As far as Dick Cheney he pulls the strings, he also made a lot of blunders as the CEO of Haliburton.  And maybe you should check how nice of man Dick Cheney is as well as Jeb Bush.\n\nCheck this link:\n\nhttp://www.newamericancentury.org/\nalso check whos names are on the "Statement Of Principles" section.
865655
Rumsfeld, along with Ashcroft and Cheney, were among the architects of the cold war scares decades ago. They use the same rhetoric, just changing the "enemies." I, for one, will be glad to see him go. During the cold war we talked about a thing called the military industrial complex. It has resurrected at the hands of these men and others of their ilk. Try to go to a screening of the movie Iraq for Sale.
1029341
Dick Cheney is the Vice President.
88809
Somewhere I hear a maniacal laugh! Muah ha ha ha! \n\nWith that permanent sneer on the Dick's lips he seems like just the character to shoot a buddy while hunting Quayle! Ooops! I mean Quail. Not Dan Quayle?  \n\nFine, what kind of arrogant elite goes Quail Hunting with his 78 Year-old millionaire lawyer pal while he sends YOUR Husbands, Brothers and Sons halfway across the globe to Die in an illegal war? He speaks for the Multinational Corporate Bottom Lines; his Oil & Power Addiction. \n\nAnd what kind of Faulty Intelligence did the Vice President have when he pulled the trigger? What kind of Half-Baked Soldiers are at the top of the organization?
843040
I can't speak with 100% certainty on Perle's opinions of Cheney because he is known for not telling the truth on occassion.\n\nHe recently came out in a Vanity Fair interview basically thrashing the administration's mishandling of the Iraqi War and the administration's reasons for invading Iraq. I, knowing his history, think he is doing this in an attempt to rewrite history hoping to erase his part in the failed pre-emptive Iraqi War.\n\nHis statements printed by Vanity Fair may sound like a legit opinion coming from the ex-chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a Pentagon advisory group, and a former assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan; but, it's not. \n\nThe reason it's not a viable opinion is due to Perle's statements out of his own mouth before the Iraqi War. You would have thought he was a Cheney clone. \n\nHere is an example. This comes from an interview with him by PBS's Wideangle in July of 2002.\n\nNotice how he is majorly promoting the idea that Al Qaeda and Iraq are tied together... just as Cheney was doing at this time.\n\n"James P. Rubin: Well, you've just seen Gwynne Roberts' film. And it raises some very explosive charges. I wonder if you could help us connect the dots. Why should the American people be concerned and what should they think having seen this film?\n\nRichard Perle: Well, the thing that is brought home so clearly in this film is the connection among terrorist organizations now implicating Saddam Hussein directly with Al Qaeda, with a global terrorist movement that ultimately wishes to destroy the United States. What I think we're discovering is that terrorists, like criminals, are in touch with one another around the globe. I think if a safe cracker in Phoenix needs a safe cracker in Manchester, England, somehow they connect (Laughs). And the terrorists are connecting. They're working together, they're reinforcing one another, and they're sharing their tradecraft. And the result is that if we are going to prevail over the terrorists, we have to take them seriously wherever they are and we have to take this war to them in their countries, on their territory. Because if we have to stand and fight on our own territory, many Americans will die in the process.\n\nJames P. Rubin: You've been an advocate of intervention in Iraq. And one of the arguments you've used is that if we wait, that someday Saddam Hussein will transfer weapons like biological weapons to terrorist organizations. Having seen the film, do you think there is now a new rationale for early military action against Saddam Hussein?\n\nRichard Perle: Well, the film of course confirms one's worst fears and apprehensions. Because the thing that many of us have speculated about is happening. There is that interchange. It is likely that chemical weapons, biological weapons in the possession of the Iraqis derived during the cold war from the Soviet Union are now being disseminated to terrorists. I don't see how we can ignore those connections that are made so clear in this film. So every day we wait is a day during which a plan may well be forming that could result in the deaths of a great many Americans. Time is not on our side."