Dick Cheney for President:

[Richard Poor]

Dick Cheney for President

After watching Mr. Cheney, the American citizen, speak so succinctly and forcefully this morning I was left thinking how nice it would be if he were to run for the presidency. No doubt, Obama is also a good speaker, when he has a teleprompter, however, Cheney seems to be able to cut through all the twaddle and deception perpetrated by Mr. Obama and the left.

Where Obama’s speeches can be accurately described as sinuous, yet vacant speechifying; Cheney’s speaks of strength, experience, veracity, and resolve. I was left very impressed today by an American citizen, but disappointed, yet again, by the man who attempted to act as a president. Despite having no flags behind him, or no presidential pulpit [or even one expressing office of the president-elect, as one pompous man once used]; Dick Cheney was for more presidential than Obama. Strip away the location, all the flags, and teleprompter and Obama would ultimately be left sounding like a high-school Model United Nations student.

Cheney, was by far, more impressive standing before the pallid partition at the American Enterprise Institute than Obama, when spoke behind the regality of the presidential seal and endless sea of red, white, and blue behind him… This dueling dichotomy bespeaks of the true nature of each man; one is legitimate and does not need any ostentatious display to be impressive while the other employs empty platitudes and desperately needs slogans, propaganda pictures, and/or impressive backgrounds in order to detract people from the reality of his empty rhetoric.
-Link (http://www.speak-out.org/)
.............

[SeniorChief]

I agree.
He'd make a great Prez.
I am sure the Libs will chime in and call him a war monger, Halliberton this.... Halliburton that. Perhaps even bring up an unfortunate hunting incident.
It doesn't matter.
When they're voting for "America's Biggest Faggot" in 2012, Cheney will win in a landslide.

[bairdi]

If this were a just world, then the only thing Cheney could win would be early release for good behavior.

[Richard Poor]

There are videos of Mr. Cheney's speech here: http://www.speak-out.org/

[Richard Poor]

If this were a just world, then the only thing Cheney could win would be early release for good behavior.
Others would argue that if this were a "just world" people who propagate such liberal lies should face the very imprisonment they seek for others.

[radioguy]

Others would argue that if this were a "just world" people who propagate such liberal lies should face the very imprisonment they seek for others.

Good one!

I couldn't agree more.

[Zebulon0351]

Halliberton this halliberton that

[mwillman]

hahaha :lmao2:

Yea go ahead guys run the man with the 18% approval rating.

I support you 100%.

[bairdi]

Others would argue that if this were a "just world" people who propagate such liberal lies should face the very imprisonment they seek for others.
And just what liberal lies would that be that I am propagating?

[disrupter]

AND Miss Cleo for Vice President.

They are both operating on the same frequency.

[MintJulep]

hahaha :lmao2:

Yea go ahead guys run the man with the 18% approval rating.

I support you 100%.

May 21, 2009

CNN Poll: Favorable opinion of Dick Cheney on the rise (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/21/cnn-poll-favorable-opinion-of-dick-cheney-on-the-rise/)
Posted: 12:08 PM ET

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/02/04/art.cheney.gi.jpg Cheney's popularity has risen in recent weeks.


http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The same day Dick Cheney delivered a major speech (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/21/happening-now-cheney-defends-security-policies/) on the battle against terrorism, a new national poll suggests that favorable opinions of the former vice president are on the rise.
But the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Wednesday morning, indicates that a majority of Americans still have an unfavorable opinion of Cheney.

Fifty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say they have an unfavorable opinion of the former vice president. Thirty-seven percent say they have a favorable opinion of Cheney, up eight points from January when he left office.

In the past two months the former vice president has become a frequent critic of the new Administration in numerous national media interviews.

“Is Cheney’s uptick due to his visibility as one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration? Almost certainly not,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Former President George W. Bush's favorable rating rose six points in that same time period, and Bush has not given a single public speech since he left office.”

The poll suggests that 41 percent of Americans hold a favorable opinion of the former president, with 57 percent viewing him unfavorably.

The survey’s release came just a few hours before Cheney spoke out Thursday on the war against terror during a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington based think tank. The former vice president defended the Bush Administration’s handling of the war on terror and challenged the Obama Administration’s attempt to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted May 14-17, with 1,010 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey’s sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

[MintJulep]

That was one awesome speech!

How I wish he were President.

[SimonDavid]

He was already defacto president; a second go-round with occupying an Oval Office in an Undisclosed Location would simply continued the cynical, Machievellian fearmongering he mastered in his previous incarnation.
But at least we would see much less of him.

[MintJulep]

He was already defacto president; a second go-round with occupying an Oval Office in an Undisclosed Location would simply continued the cynical, Machievellian fearmongering he mastered in his previous incarnation.
But at least we would see much less of him.I'd feel a hell of a lot better if he were President. When you juxtapose the two speeches today, he undeniably looks in control and Presidential. Obama doesn't know WTF is going on...and doesn't care about anything except what benefits him politically.

It is quite amazing how many koolaid-addled lemmings actually believe he will improve health care, "heal" the auto, insurance and banking industries and keep America safe by governing from a weak, appeasing position. This "President" who has no more experience than standing on a street corner giving away govt. money (to the disadvantaged) as a community organizer.

A textbook example of dumb, lazy America..........

[mwillman]

Dream on righties,

You couldn't get Cheney elected if you bought him a new heart and taught him how to use one.

[Richard Poor]

That was one awesome speech!

How I wish he were President.
Yes, it was... it was both effective and eloquent in its directness and stalwart in its veracity… and yes the country would be much better off with a man of character, such as Cheney, in the Oval Office rather than a caricature of a man.

[MintJulep]

Even See-BS agrees

D.C. Smackdown: Advantage Cheney

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/05/21/image5031165g.jpg

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/21/opinion/main5031782.shtml

[MintJulep]

Yes, it was... it was both effective and eloquent in its directness and stalwart in its veracity… and yes the country would be much better off with a man of character, such as Cheney, in the Oval Office rather than a caricature of a man.Well said and absolutely!! Caricature is a spot-on description.

[Richard Poor]

And just what liberal lies would that be that I am propagating?
Where do you want to start?
Below is a small list of truths that too many liberals too often lie about:

-God is real
-America was founded as a Christian nation
-Freedom OF religion does not mean freedom FROM religion
-Abortion is murder
-Water boarding under medical supervision or listening to loud music is not real torture
-Over taxing and overspending is not good for the economy and America
-Mr. Wright, and thus Obama, are racists
-Capitulating to dictators and terrorists is not good for America
-Punishing good behavior and rewarding bad behavior is bad for America as is punishing success/hard-work and rewarding laziness/incompetence.
-Etc.


Pick a lie... sadly, there are too many to choose from and many more left unstated...

[Richard Poor]

AND Miss Cleo for Vice President.

They are both operating on the same frequency.
You mean instead of Biden or instead of Obama... for who can say which one of three is loonier? After all, Biden-Cleo, Obama-Biden, or Obama-Cleo are all the same... nutty.

[SimonDavid]

I'd feel a hell of a lot better if he were President. When you juxtapose the two speeches today, he undeniably looks in control and Presidential. Obama doesn't know WTF is going on...and doesn't care about anything except what benefits him politically.

It is quite amazing how many koolaid-addled lemmings actually believe he will improve health care, "heal" the auto, insurance and banking industries and keep America safe by governing from a weak, appeasing position. This "President" who has no more experience than standing on a street corner giving away govt. money (to the disadvantaged) as a community organizer.

A textbook example of dumb, lazy America..........
What "benefits him politically"? What do you think Cheney was engaged in? He is out of office, discredited and powerless. He is desperately attempting to resurrect his rotting legacy before he finally meets the same fate.
Obama is attempting to fix the Cheney disaster, who knows if he will be, or even King Solomon could be, successful. We already have had eight years of Cheney and look around. This is his legacy.
As for your "See-BS" endorsement of Cheney's classless diatribe, it was just the opinion of yet another Right Wing blogger (http://newledger.com/blogs/chequer-board/), the appearance of which on the CBS web site only serves to prove "liberal bias" to be the lie it has been.

[Black Widow]

CHENEY A TRUE HERO! HUZZAH!!!

[Richard Poor]

What "benefits him politically"?It is easier to be lazy, than hardworking; it is easier to believe pleasant sounding lies than deal with unkind reality; and it is easier to ignorant than to be informed.

Thus, Obama appeals to those that seek the easy road in life... ironically, this road ends up becoming one of the most unpleasant roads of all... however, as long as people are beguiled into believing that ignorance and laziness will be rewarded, Obama and his Democrats will continue to reap the rewards.

It What do you think Cheney was engaged in? He is out of office, discredited and powerless. Discredited? He served two back-to-back terms as the American Vice-President during a very difficult time... and he did so honorably and effectively. Only blind liberal fool would think that a man who has honorably succeeded in what he sought is discredited.

He is desperately attempting to resurrect his rotting legacy before he finally meets the same fate.No, history will record the success of his terms... he was not impeached, like the former President was - and history has already recorded that.

Moreover, all Cheney is doing is standing up to the silliness and lies of the present administration. Every time something comes up that they do not like, or something that is difficult to deal with, Obama and his cronies launch into a predictable attack on Bush. It is always someone else's fault... To be honest, I do not recall any administration working so hard to blame the previous one. However, I believe Obama's lies serve a larger purpose; as long as he and other liberals continue to blame President Bush they do not have to take responsibility for their actions... and knowing that their actions are bad for the country, they keep on trying to sacrifice the former President in order to shield themselves from criticism; and liberal fools are too eager to scoff that up.

Obama is attempting to fix the Cheney disaster...As I stated above, that is not what he is doing at all.

As for your "See-BS" endorsement of Cheney's classless diatribe, it was just the opinion of yet another Right Wing blogger (http://newledger.com/blogs/chequer-board/), the appearance of which on the CBS web site only serves to prove "liberal bias" to be the lie it has been.
Did you actually read the article? Probably not since you are attacking a writer who agrees with the liberal lies perpetuated by this administration and the media - however, he had a moment of honesty and simply told the truth; that Mr. Cheney's speech was far more effective than Obama's... even though he agrees with Obama.

[SimonDavid]

It is easier to be lazy, than hardworking; it is easier to believe pleasant sounding lies than deal with unkind reality; and it is easier to ignorant than to be informed.
Interesting, this reads like the qualifications for membership in the Cheney/Bush Cult.

Thus, Obama appeals to those that seek the easy road in life... ironically, this road ends up becoming one of the most unpleasant roads of all... however, as long as people are beguiled into believing that ignorance and laziness will be rewarded, Obama and his Democrats will continue to reap the rewards.
There has never been a president more lazy and ignorant than George W. Bush. And that includes the amaurotic vision of his most determined followers, as your comments indicate.

Discredited? He served two back-to-back terms as the American Vice-President during a very difficult time... and he did so honorably and effectively. Only blind liberal fool would think that a man who has honorably succeeded in what he sought is discredited.

No, history will record the success of his terms... he was not impeached, like the former President was - and history has already recorded that.
History will speak for itself; I will admit Cheney cares about history, which is more than his puppet ever did.
And that is the standard now? He may have been a complete failure, leaving a legacy of ruin in multiple aspects of our national life, but he was not impeached?
As I said, a rotting legacy, still stinking up the nation.

Moreover, all Cheney is doing is standing up to the silliness and lies of the present administration. Every time something comes up that they do not like, or something that is difficult to deal with, Obama and his cronies launch into a predictable attack on Bush. It is always someone else's fault... To be honest, I do not recall any administration working so hard to blame the previous one. However, I believe Obama's lies serve a larger purpose; as long as he and other liberals continue to blame President Bush they do not have to take responsibility for their actions... and knowing that their actions are bad for the country, they keep on trying to sacrifice the former President in order to shield themselves from criticism; and liberal fools are too eager to scoff that up.
The fool is one who believes the current situation has anything to do with a president in office four months, with the last eight years having no contribution to the situation's gravity. In which case, that would be you.

As I stated above, that is not what he is doing at all.
State it as often as you like, it does not change its inaccuracy.

Did you actually read the article? Probably not since you are attacking a writer who agrees with the liberal lies perpetuated by this administration and the media - however, he had a moment of honesty and simply told the truth; that Mr. Cheney's speech was far more effective than Obama's... even though he agrees with Obama.
If Michelle Obama stated Cheney "smacked down" her husband it would not make the observation any less idiotic. This is not the WWF; this is the future, and Cheney is the past, where he should stay.

[radioguy]

All I can say is, that was a brilliant speech. It was the most honest thing I've heard come out of Washington in a long time.

Bravo Mr. Cheney.

[Richard Poor]

Interesting, this reads like the qualifications for membership in the Cheney/Bush Cult.
That's ok - your response sounds like the qualifications for membership in the Obama/Lies-and-Liberalism Cult.

There has never been a president more lazy and ignorant than George W. Bush.
See: Jimmy Carter and Barrack Obama for starters...

History will speak for itself; I will admit Cheney cares about history, which is more than his puppet ever did.You do not have to admit that for no one is trying to prove that.

His puppet? Are you speaking of Obama in the past tense? Yes, Cheney exposed Obama as the liberal marionette he is.

And that is the standard now? He may have been a complete failure, leaving a legacy of ruin in multiple aspects of our national life, but he was not impeached?Hmm, let's see; less than a year after Clinton took office there was the September 11th attacks... and less than a year into Obama's reign, he has all but killed our economy - the fact that it continues to survive [for now] speaks to its stalwart nature, which Obama is desperately trying to destroy. Yet, you chose to criticize the Bush administration who worked so diligently to keep America safe from future attacks and rebuild the economy after the huge blow it took after 9/11. It seems your standard for "discredited" is either successful or diligent. No wonder you like Obama - he seems to be neither.

As I said, a rotting legacy, still stinking up the nation.Why bring up Jimmy Carter in this discussion?


The fool is one who believes the current situation has anything to do with a president in office four months, with the last eight years having no contribution to the situation's gravity. In which case, that would be you.No, the fool is the one that somehow believes that the massive spending accomplished within the first four months coupled with what amounts to increased taxes has no negative impact on the economy.

Moreover, only a complete fool would attack the past eight years after their work successfully kept America safe and the economy going after the nefarious attack on the World Trade Center.


If Michelle Obama stated Cheney "smacked down" her husband it would not make the observation any less idiotic. This is not the WWF; this is the future, and Cheney is the past, where he should stay.I am sure there was point here other than to bring up her rampant racism when she stated that [she] has never been proud of [her] country in [her] entire adult life... ... nah.

[Richard Poor]

All I can say is, that was a brilliant speech. It was the most honest thing I've heard come out of Washington in a long time.

Bravo Mr. Cheney.
I agree - it was both refreshing and inspiring.

[SimonDavid]

That's ok - your response sounds like the qualifications for membership in the Obama/Lies-and-Liberalism Cult.
So now we are down to schoolyard "I know you are, what am I" debate?

See: Jimmy Carter and Barrack Obama for starters...
Carter was unsuccessful on many fronts, but ignorant and lazy do not apply. They do not apply to Obama, either, and it is way too soon to gauge his success.

His puppet? Are you speaking of Obama in the past tense? Yes, Cheney exposed Obama as the liberal marionette he is.
No, silly, the Howdy Doody doll held up in front of him.

Hmm, let's see; less than a year after Clinton took office there was the September 11th attacks...
Hmmm...If you mean the first bombing of the World Trade Center, that did indeed happen a year into Clinton's presidency (and by your standard was the fault of Bush the First), those perpetrators have been in prison ever since. Meanwhile...

and less than a year into Obama's reign, he has all but killed our economy - the fact that it continues to survive [for now] speaks to its stalwart nature,
Or that you are wrong.
which Obama is desperately trying to destroy. Yet, you chose to criticize the Bush administration who worked so diligently to keep America safe from future attacks and rebuild the economy after the huge blow it took after 9/11. It seems your standard for "discredited" is either successful or diligent. No wonder you like Obama - he seems to be neither.
Obama is trying to "destroy the economy"? Tell me, what did you say to those who claimed 9/11 was an "inside job", that Bush/Cheney were attempting to achieve dictatorial power? Your assertion is no more absurd and paranoic than that one. Did you call them idiots? If so, then look at yourself and say, audibly now, where everyone can hear, "Idiot".

Why bring up Jimmy Carter in this discussion?
Oh, good point...no wait, that is not what I did.

No, the fool is the one that somehow believes that the massive spending accomplished within the first four months coupled with what amounts to increased taxes has no negative impact on the economy.
I am sure you are aware of the concept, so I will not get into here, except to remind you the spending jump is not intended to be permanent, and as for taxes who knows? They may be cut when the economy is healthy enough to allow it (I know you do not believe the economy will be healthy again, so you might save yourself some time from reiterating that). We know what effect Bush's tax cuts had on the economy, coupled with massive spending, some of it $12 billion per month.

Moreover, only a complete fool would attack the past eight years after their work successfully kept America safe and the economy going after the nefarious attack on the World Trade Center.
"Kept the economy going"? By encouraging shopping instead of sacrifice? By latching onto a housing bubble and promoting it, hoping it would last long enough to for Bush to get safely back to Texas (another failure)?
Terrorism increased world wide under Bush/Cheney. Thinking that has "kept America safe" is myopic thinking at best.
In any case, I am aware of another participant on this board who cares about nothing but American lives, thinking the lives of our allies in this alleged "war on terror" are expendable, should I add you to that list?

I am sure there was point here other than to bring up her rampant racism when she stated that [she] has never been proud of [her] country in [her] entire adult life... ... nah.
Really? Did she disparage any racial group? If so, which one and how?
Now if you want to question her "patriotism" in being disappointed with Jim Crow, Vietnam, Watergate, boom-crash-recession-boom-crash-recession, until the US finally manifested just how far it is possible for us to come with the symbolism of the last election cycle, then go ahead. I am not surprised we have different interpretations of patriotism.

[MintJulep]

The former veep's speech was factual and unemotional and certainly devoid of the kind of hokey, self-obsessed, campaign-style stuff like this, from Obama's address today: "I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to these shores in search of the promise that they offer. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn their truths when I lived as a child in a foreign land."

In terms of Obama's purported aim for his speech - to present a plan for closing Guantanamo Bay aimed at placating Congress - he failed. The reception on Capitol Hill was lukewarm with even Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Dick Cheney responds

Cheney's speech wasn't stylish, there were no rhetorical flourishes and the tone was bitingly sarcastic and disdainful at times. But it was effective in many respects and Cheney showed that Obama is not invulnerable. Here are 10 of the punches he landed on the President's jaw:

1. "I've heard occasional speculation that I'm a different man after 9/11. I wouldn't say that, but I'll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities."

Anyone who was in New York or Washington on 9/11 (I was here in DC) was profoundly affected and most Americans understand this. Obama was, as far as I can tell, in Chicago. His response - he was then a mere state senator for liberal Hyde Park - was startlingly hand-wringing and out of step with how most Americans were feeling. This statement by Cheney reminds people of the tough decisions he and Bush had to make - ones that Obama has not yet faced.

2. "The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law- enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact: arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed."

This was the pre-9/11 mindset, much criticised after the attacks. Many sense that this is the approach Obama is increasingly taking.

3. "By presidential decision last month, we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public's right to know. We're informed as well that there was much agonizing over this decision. Yet somehow, when the soul searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth."

The release of the documents was a nakedly political move by Obama and Cheney called him on it. This passage from Obama's speech today came across as completely disingenuous:"I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, and I didn't release the documents because I rejected their legal rationales -- although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush Administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods."


4. "It's hard to imagine a worse precedent filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessor. Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers, who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security and what it requires."

Obama's suggestion that Bush administration officials might be prosecuted for legal and policy judgements about what was an was not permissible in interrogations was chilling. I doubt most Americans have any enthusiasm for such a witch-hunt and it flies in the face of Obama's stated desire not to "re-litigate" the Bush years.

5. "We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country, things we didn't know about al Qaeda. We didn't know about al Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we did not think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all."

The political climate is very different now from what it was just after 9/11 but it could change again in a heartbeat if and when there is another terrorist attack. Most Americans do not favour torture but do want the CIA and other agencies to question suspected terrorists very vigorously indeed if there is any chance they might know something about an attack on the US homeland.

6. "On his second day in office, President Obama announced he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation, and no plan. Now the president says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system. Others, he says, will be shipped to third countries; but so far, the United States has had little luck getting other countries to take hardened terrorists."

Obama's grand announcement at the start of his administration that Gitmo would be closed within a year was clearly not properly thought out. If he fails to achieve what he promised, he will pay a big political price and Cheney was marking his card on the issue.

7. "The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo, but it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interest of justice and America's national security."

The notion that Obama makes gestures designed to court popularity abroad is one that could find increasing resonance - many Republicans strongly suspect it already.

8. "If fine speechmaking, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field."

As Cheney said this, sarcasm dripped from his lips. Obviously "fine speechmaking" but no real substance is not a new charge against Obama and it hits home. And Cheney successfully mades the point that much of the rhetoric from the Left tends to suggest that if only the US did not waterboard people, if only the US was viewed as Obama rather than Bush, Venus rather than Mars then it would be universally loved and al-Qaeda would wither away. UNfortunately, that's not the real world.

9. "It's worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the president himself. President Obama has used his declassification authority to reveal what happens in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials."

Cheney is pushing Obama to declassify documeents relating to the information gained from terrorist suspects who were subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. This puts Obama in a bind. If he does so, it prolongs an argument he wants to move on from and prolongs the Obama vs Cheney meme that is distracting and doesn't really help him. if he doesn't, he looks like he has something to hide.

10. "To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, 7- 1/2 years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized."

It's indisputably an achievement of the Bush administration that it prevented the US from being attacked after 9/11. By ramming this point home, Cheney tees things up for some very tough questioning of Obama in the event that the US is attacked again.

[SimonDavid]

The former veep's speech was factual and unemotional and certainly devoid of the kind of hokey, self-obsessed, campaign-style stuff like this, from Obama's address today: "I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to these shores in search of the promise that they offer. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn their truths when I lived as a child in a foreign land."
Unemotional certainly...but that is hardly surprising. He would have to have some to begin with.

In terms of Obama's purported aim for his speech - to present a plan for closing Guantanamo Bay aimed at placating Congress - he failed. The reception on Capitol Hill was lukewarm with even Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
The cowardice of the Democrats has been well documented...no surprise here, either.

1. "I've heard occasional speculation that I'm a different man after 9/11. I wouldn't say that, but I'll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities."
And fabulous financial opportunities as well!

Anyone who was in New York or Washington on 9/11 (I was here in DC) was profoundly affected and most Americans understand this. Obama was, as far as I can tell, in Chicago. His response - he was then a mere state senator for liberal Hyde Park - was startlingly hand-wringing and out of step with how most Americans were feeling. This statement by Cheney reminds people of the tough decisions he and Bush had to make - ones that Obama has not yet faced.
Yes, Bush sat ashen faced with an "Oh shit, now what" look, then jumped from one air force base to the other, attempting to outrun a foe he knew nothing about. Cheney, meanwhile, was whisked off to his "undisclosed location"...clearly he sees no need for such a bunker now.

2. "The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law- enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact: arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed."

This was the pre-9/11 mindset, much criticised after the attacks. Many sense that this is the approach Obama is increasingly taking.
Which is the right approach. We could have dealt with the Mafia by invading Sicily, or more likely, given the Bush/Cheney track record, Capri, but cooler heads prevailed then.

3. "By presidential decision last month, we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public's right to know. We're informed as well that there was much agonizing over this decision. Yet somehow, when the soul searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth."

The release of the documents was a nakedly political move by Obama and Cheney called him on it. This passage from Obama's speech today came across as completely disingenuous:"I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, and I didn't release the documents because I rejected their legal rationales -- although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush Administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods."
What is untrue in his statement? And "nakedly political"...that would apply to Cheney more so, if it did not create such a disagreeable imagery.

4. "It's hard to imagine a worse precedent filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessor. Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers, who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security and what it requires."

Obama's suggestion that Bush administration officials might be prosecuted for legal and policy judgements about what was an was not permissible in interrogations was chilling. I doubt most Americans have any enthusiasm for such a witch-hunt and it flies in the face of Obama's stated desire not to "re-litigate" the Bush years.
Few want to go through a trial of those two lizards, but the rule of law may demand it.

5. "We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country, things we didn't know about al Qaeda. We didn't know about al Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we did not think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all."
More lies. Mohammed had provided answers prior to his waterboarding.

The political climate is very different now from what it was just after 9/11 but it could change again in a heartbeat if and when there is another terrorist attack. Most Americans do not favour torture but do want the CIA and other agencies to question suspected terrorists very vigorously indeed if there is any chance they might know something about an attack on the US homeland.

6. "On his second day in office, President Obama announced he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation, and no plan. Now the president says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system. Others, he says, will be shipped to third countries; but so far, the United States has had little luck getting other countries to take hardened terrorists."
Perhaps we should just shoot them out into space.

Obama's grand announcement at the start of his administration that Gitmo would be closed within a year was clearly not properly thought out. If he fails to achieve what he promised, he will pay a big political price and Cheney was marking his card on the issue.

7. "The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo, but it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interest of justice and America's national security."

The notion that Obama makes gestures designed to court popularity abroad is one that could find increasing resonance - many Republicans strongly suspect it already.
Yes, a global version of the divisiveness that is the heart of Rovian political philosophy was the preference of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

8. "If fine speechmaking, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field."

As Cheney said this, sarcasm dripped from his lips. Obviously "fine speechmaking" but no real substance is not a new charge against Obama and it hits home. And Cheney successfully mades the point that much of the rhetoric from the Left tends to suggest that if only the US did not waterboard people, if only the US was viewed as Obama rather than Bush, Venus rather than Mars then it would be universally loved and al-Qaeda would wither away. UNfortunately, that's not the real world.
Obama said nothing like what Cheney is claiming, so there are more lies. His willingness, nay, enthusiasm for lying is extraordinary.

9. "It's worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the president himself. President Obama has used his declassification authority to reveal what happens in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials."
Good idea. Call Cheney's bluff. That would have the added advantage of giving good agents the due they deserve.

Cheney is pushing Obama to declassify documeents relating to the information gained from terrorist suspects who were subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. This puts Obama in a bind. If he does so, it prolongs an argument he wants to move on from and prolongs the Obama vs Cheney meme that is distracting and doesn't really help him. if he doesn't, he looks like he has something to hide.

10. "To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, 7- 1/2 years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized."

It's indisputably an achievement of the Bush administration that it prevented the US from being attacked after 9/11. By ramming this point home, Cheney tees things up for some very tough questioning of Obama in the event that the US is attacked again.
Which is the whole purpose of the speech. Cheney and the Rightwing zealots want another attack, so they can use the next one as they used the other, in this case to regain and solidify power. The glee and zeal with which the writer anticipates such an event is palatable.

[MintJulep]

Unemotional certainly...but that is hardly surprising. He would have to have some to begin with.I'd much rather have someone who operates out of reason instead of emotion.

Yes, Bush sat ashen faced with an "Oh shit, now what" look, then jumped from one air force base to the other, attempting to outrun a foe he knew nothing about. Cheney, meanwhile, was whisked off to his "undisclosed location"...clearly he sees no need for such a bunker now.Regardless, we've had no attacks since 9/11.

Musta got something right, no?.....you betcha! :thumbsup:

Which is the right approach. We could have dealt with the Mafia by invading Sicily, or more likely, given the Bush/Cheney track record, Capri, but cooler heads prevailed then.What an unreasonable reply.

I suppose if we were nuked the TOTUS will bow and apologize that we "made 'em do it".

What is untrue in his statement? And "nakedly political"...that would apply to Cheney more so, if it did not create such a disagreeable imagery.The public was shown half of the picture. You see, Obamao released the information (and almost the pictures) on enhanced interrogation -- yet, redacted the information showing what such methods yielded. Now, tell me, if the enhanced interrogation was so worthless, wouldn't Obama release this information in order to prove that? Obviously, that is NOT the case. But now Pandora's box is open and the public wants to know the WHOLE story, not just the cherry-picked moonbat version.

I sincerely hope Cheney gets on camera and spills the beans about it all, or at least, leaks the information. It's coming, just a matter of time.

Few want to go through a trial of those two lizards, but the rule of law may demand it.Trial for WHAT? Protecting the country?

More lies. Mohammed had provided answers prior to his waterboarding.And provided even more answers after....

We will know how much after we get the documents released.

Perhaps we should just shoot them out into space.Harry Reid prefers that over bringing them to the US, as do I.

Yes, a global version of the divisiveness that is the heart of Rovian political philosophy was the preference of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.Global divisiveness? You actually think other countries are individuals with "feelings" when they are nothing but separate entities with only their own interests in mind.

Furthermore, as to divisiveness, you can hardly top the Moveon/Soros/Chimpybushitler hate brigade from the left for the past eight years. As I told you once before, "the worm has turned".

Obama said nothing like what Cheney is claiming, so there are more lies. His willingness, nay, enthusiasm for lying is extraordinary.Cheney never states Obama said that. He is stating a fact. If frilly speeches and pleas for compassion is all needed to stop terrorists, they would have stopped 30 years ago. Theo Van Gogh and the 200 children in Beslan would still be alive along with scores of others.

Good idea. Call Cheney's bluff. That would have the added advantage of giving good agents the due they deserve.The only way he can "call Cheney's bluff" is to release the documents he has hidden from the public until now. Time for some real "transparency!" LOL

Which is the whole purpose of the speech. Cheney and the Rightwing zealots want another attack, so they can use the next one as they used the other, in this case to regain and solidify power. The glee and zeal with which the writer anticipates such an event is palatable.Your opinion.

If another attack were to occur, however, you can bet Obamao's support will dry up like air from a popped balloon. And it should because it will be his fault alone due to his foolish, weak behavior on the world stage.

[Richard Poor]

So now we are down to schoolyard "I know you are, what am I" debate?You brought it to that level, so do not complain when it is thrown back at you.


Carter was unsuccessful on many fronts, but ignorant and lazy do not apply. They do not apply to Obama, either, and it is way too soon to gauge his success.It applies to Carter and Obama far more than it applies to George W. Bush, if it applies to him at all.


Hmmm...If you mean the first bombing of the World Trade Center, that did indeed happen a year into Clinton's presidency (and by your standard was the fault of Bush the First), those perpetrators have been in prison ever since. Meanwhile...Yes, and did that protect America from the 9/11 attacks? No. Did Clinton's actions save the 3000+ lives lost on 9/11? No.... as you can see Clinton was ineffective to say the least... and that is why Bush had to do more.

By the way, my standard is simply to blame those that are culpable - I know that this position is a radical departure from liberalism, but it is more honest.


Obama is trying to "destroy the economy"? Tell me, what did you say to those who claimed 9/11 was an "inside job", that Bush/Cheney were attempting to achieve dictatorial power?Nothing, I laughed at their absurdity.


Your assertion is no more absurd and paranoic than that one. Did you call them idiots? If so, then look at yourself and say, audibly now, where everyone can hear, "Idiot".Really? I think not - did Bush and Cheney attack America on 9/11? No. Did Obama and his liberal Congress pass the most ridiculously expensive bill in the history of the United States and is effectively raising taxes at a time of economic crisis? Yes. As you can see there is a difference between the two statements - despite your claims to the contrary.


Oh, good point...no wait, that is not what I did.I read it again... it sure seemed like you did.


I am sure you are aware of the concept, so I will not get into here, except to remind you the spending jump is not intended to be permanent, and as for taxes who knows?Are you kidding me? Just one bill that Obama and his liberal Congress passed was worth 787 BILLION dollars... and they passed even more spending bills. With interest, this spending will be in the trillions of dollars... on top of the massive debt already incurred. It is either completely irresponsible, or purposely destructive, to spend such outrageous sums at a time of economic crisis... and it is even worse, to progressively work for ways to garner increased taxes from people and corporations who employ people at a time such as this.


They may be cut when the economy is healthy enough to allow it (I know you do not believe the economy will be healthy again, so you might save yourself some time from reiterating that). We know what effect Bush's tax cuts had on the economy, coupled with massive spending, some of it $12 billion per month. Hmm... seems you have a case of selective memory: The dot.com tech bubble burst in 2001 which greatly damaged the economy... there was the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center no less, which hurt the economy immeasurably, and there was Katrina which was devastating, etc... So as anyone with honest eye can see; Bush's economic policies of tax cuts, kept the economy going during a time of what could have been catastrophic economic failure... so, the net effect of Bush's tax cuts was positive when shown in context.


"Kept the economy going"? By encouraging shopping instead of sacrifice? By latching onto a housing bubble and promoting it, hoping it would last long enough to for Bush to get safely back to Texas (another failure)?Wow, who were the main proponents of deregulation in the housing market - Barney Frank and Chris Dodd [to a lesser effect], but both were Democrats... who tried to stop this deregulation? Bush and Cheney... yet, you want to blame Bush and Cheney….wow. If you want to keep debating - at least be honest.

In regards to shopping - yes; when people have more money [as often happens when there are tax cuts], they tend to spend more, this spending increases/maintains jobs; this keeps people paying taxes rather then get laid-off and receiving welfare... in the end, increased spending is good both for the people, who enjoy more fruits from their labor, and the government, which has to pay out less unemployment while receiving the revenue from increased spending.


Terrorism increased world wide under Bush/Cheney. Thinking that has "kept America safe" is myopic thinking at best. Really? What did Bush and Cheney specifically do that caused 9/11? Did they use enhanced interrogations before 9/11? No. Was Guantanamo open as a terrorist prison before 9/11? No.

So, as anyone can see; Bush policies did not increase terrorism that was not already there before they took office. The 9/11 terrorists had planned their attack well before Bush.

Terrorism had already reached the level that whereby 3000+ innocent Americans died on 9/11... and to say that terrorism increased after Bush tried to keep America safe is to try and argue that terrorists now want Americans deader than dead - of course, that does not make sense, since one cannot be deader than dead.

Terrorists have hated America before Bush and they will continue to hate us - no matter how many times Obama bows to them both figuratively and literally.


In any case, I am aware of another participant on this board who cares about nothing but American lives, thinking the lives of our allies in this alleged "war on terror" are expendable, should I add you to that list?Is there a point to this question? Regardless, the question is moot for I will not entertain moral question from someone that supports the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent Americans every year under the guise of so-called abortion.


Really? Did she disparage any racial group? If so, which one and how? Yes... White people; by denying the great achievements of many Americans who happened to be White and by inferring that America, because of White people, has not done anything worth being proud of.


Now if you want to question her "patriotism" in being disappointed with Jim Crow, Vietnam, Watergate, boom-crash-recession-boom-crash-recession, until the US finally manifested just how far it is possible for us to come with the symbolism of the last election cycle, then go ahead. I am not surprised we have different interpretations of patriotism.Why would you be surprised when you support a man who attended racist meetings for over 20 years and yet not call him a racist? LOL.

[MintJulep]

You brought it to that level, so do not complain when it is thrown back at you.


It applies to Carter and Obama far more than it applies to George W. Bush, if it applies to him at all.


Yes, and did that protect America from the 9/11 attacks? No. Did Clinton's actions save the 3000+ lives lost on 9/11? No.... as you can see Clinton was ineffective to say the least... and that is why Bush had to do more.

By the way, my standard is simply to blame those that are culpable - I know that this position is a radical departure from liberalism, but it is more honest.


Nothing, I laughed at their absurdity.


Really? I think not - did Bush and Cheney attack America on 9/11? No. Did Obama and his liberal Congress pass the most ridiculously expensive bill in the history of the United States and is effectively raising taxes at a time of economic crisis? Yes. As you can see there is a difference between the two statements - despite your claims to the contrary.


I read it again... it sure seemed like you did.


Are you kidding me? Just one bill that Obama and his liberal Congress passed was worth 787 BILLION dollars... and they passed even more spending bills. With interest, this spending will be in the trillions of dollars... on top of the massive debt already incurred. It is either completely irresponsible, or purposely destructive, to spend such outrageous sums at a time of economic crisis... and it is even worse, to progressively work for ways to garner increased taxes from people and corporations who employ people at a time such as this.


Hmm... seems you have a case of selective memory: The dot.com tech bubble burst in 2001 which greatly damaged the economy... there was the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center no less, which hurt the economy immeasurably, and there was Katrina which was devastating, etc... So as anyone with honest eye can see; Bush's economic policies of tax cuts, kept the economy going during a time of what could have been catastrophic economic failure... so, the net effect of Bush's tax cuts was positive when shown in context.


Wow, who were the main proponents of deregulation in the housing market - Barney Frank and Chris Dodd [to a lesser effect], but both were Democrats... who tried to stop this deregulation? Bush and Cheney... yet, you want to blame Bush and Cheney….wow. If you want to keep debating - at least be honest.

In regards to shopping - yes; when people have more money [as often happens when there are tax cuts], they tend to spend more, this spending increases/maintains jobs; this keeps people paying taxes rather then get laid-off and receiving welfare... in the end, increased spending is good both for the people, who enjoy more fruits from their labor, and the government, which has to pay out less unemployment while receiving the revenue from icreased spending.


Really? What did Bush and Cheney specifically do that caused 9/11? Did they use enhanced interrogations before 9/11? No. Was Guantanamo open as a terrorist prison before 9/11? No.

So, as anyone can see; Bush policies did not increase terrorism that was not already there before they took office. The 9/11 terrorists had planned their attack well before Bush.

Terrorism had already reached the level that whereby 3000+ innocent Americans died on 9/11... and to say that terrorism increased after Bush tried to keep America safe is to try and argue that terrorists now want Americans deader than dead - of course, that does not make sense, since one cannot be deader than dead.

Terrorists have hated America before Bush and they will continue to hate us - no matter how many times Obama bows to them both figuratively and literally.


Is there a point to this question? Regardless, the question is moot for I will not entertain moral question from someone that supports the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent Americans every year under the guise of so-called abortion.


Yes... White people; by denying the great achievements of many Americans who happened to be White and by inferring that America, because of White people, has not done worth being proud of.


Why would you be surprised when you support a man who attended racist meetings for over 20 years and yet not call him a racist? LOL.:thumbsup: Damn, you're good.

[SimonDavid]

You brought it to that level, so do not complain when it is thrown back at you.
If my "level" is so low why are you so anxious to stoop down? Surely you are a better man than I...but apparently not.

It applies to Carter and Obama far more than it applies to George W. Bush, if it applies to him at all.
Back and forth, back and forth. Please, you cannot seriously claim Bush is any sort of intellectual on any level. He has long shown contempt for intellectuals. We are talking about the same Bush, are we not? George W.? That one?

Yes, and did that protect America from the 9/11 attacks? No. Did Clinton's actions save the 3000+ lives lost on 9/11? No.... as you can see Clinton was ineffective to say the least... and that is why Bush had to do more.
There were eight years between those attacks. We are at the new eight year point soon...and the Right is salivating at the chance to blame Obama for the next one.

By the way, my standard is simply to blame those that are culpable - I know that this position is a radical departure from liberalism, but it is more honest.
Unless they are on "your side"...then we have a different kettle of fish. Bush/Cheney are, according to the Right, responsible for nothing on their eight year watch; everything up to January 19, 2001 was "Clinton did it", everything after, no matter what, is Obama's fault. This is amazingly idiotic and childish thinking.

Nothing, I laughed at their absurdity.
Really? I think not - did Bush and Cheney attack America on 9/11? No. Did Obama and his liberal Congress pass the most ridiculously expensive bill in the history of the United States and is effectively raising taxes at a time of economic crisis? Yes. As you can see there is a difference between the two statements - despite your claims to the contrary.
You should have laughed at their absurdity, and you should laugh at yourself for yours. Obama, regardless of your paranoid fantasy, is attempting to save the economy. Whether or not he will be successful is an open question. He certainly has his hands full with the problems he inherited. He sought and took the job, however, so we will see what happens. If he succeeds I fully expect you to give credit to some Cheney speech.

I read it again... it sure seemed like you did.
Then you cannot read. The context was Cheney's legacy, as apt an example of putrid necrosis as any imaginable.

Are you kidding me? Just one bill that Obama and his liberal Congress passed was worth 787 BILLION dollars... and they passed even more spending bills. With interest, this spending will be in the trillions of dollars... on top of the massive debt already incurred. It is either completely irresponsible, or purposely destructive, to spend such outrageous sums at a time of economic crisis... and it is even worse, to progressively work for ways to garner increased taxes from people and corporations who employ people at a time such as this.
Clinton raised taxes and the dot com boom took off. Tax rates throughout the 1960s were far higher than they have been since 1980, and another economic boom occurred then. Since 1980 there have been two recessions under Reagan/Bush and an economic collapse under Bush/Cheney. Obviously raising taxes is not the deviltry you pretend it to be.

Hmm... seems you have a case of selective memory: The dot.com tech bubble burst in 2001 which greatly damaged the economy... there was the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center no less, which hurt the economy immeasurably, and there was Katrina which was devastating, etc... So as anyone with honest eye can see; Bush's economic policies of tax cuts, kept the economy going during a time of what could have been catastrophic economic failure... so, the net effect of Bush's tax cuts was positive when shown in context.
You probably really know that nothing is instantaneous in economics, everything done, whether to or for an economy, takes time to cycle through. Obviously the US economy was strong enough to withstand the Bush administrations early disasters, but not strong enough to sustain them for a full two terms.

Wow, who were the main proponents of deregulation in the housing market - Barney Frank and Chris Dodd [to a lesser effect], but both were Democrats... who tried to stop this deregulation? Bush and Cheney... yet, you want to blame Bush and Cheney….wow. If you want to keep debating - at least be honest.
Who promoted the real estate bubble in a desperate attempt to keep something positive in an otherwise moribund economy throughout the past four years? Whose idea of handing out $1200 checks as "stimulus" proved a failure?

In regards to shopping - yes; when people have more money [as often happens when there are tax cuts], they tend to spend more, this spending increases/maintains jobs; this keeps people paying taxes rather then get laid-off and receiving welfare... in the end, increased spending is good both for the people, who enjoy more fruits from their labor, and the government, which has to pay out less unemployment while receiving the revenue from increased spending.
A fine idea; except that the Bush plan of "Spend consumers spend" encouraged consumers to spend until they had nothing else with which to spend, then stopped. When spending is the engine of the economy and no one in the private sector is doing so, who is left to spend?

Really? What did Bush and Cheney specifically do that caused 9/11? Did they use enhanced interrogations before 9/11? No. Was Guantanamo open as a terrorist prison before 9/11? No.

So, as anyone can see; Bush policies did not increase terrorism that was not already there before they took office. The 9/11 terrorists had planned their attack well before Bush.

Terrorism had already reached the level that whereby 3000+ innocent Americans died on 9/11... and to say that terrorism increased after Bush tried to keep America safe is to try and argue that terrorists now want Americans deader than dead - of course, that does not make sense, since one cannot be deader than dead.

Terrorists have hated America before Bush and they will continue to hate us - no matter how many times Obama bows to them both figuratively and literally.
First, to what "terrorist" has Obama bowed? Our "ally" in Saudi Arabia? The one Bush kissed? Is there no end to your nonsense?
The war in Iraq was, according to many not blinded by Bush Cult dogma, recruitment tool for Middle East terrorists beyond even their fevered imaginations. Terrorism increased world wide under Bush/Cheney. This is an irrefutable fact, not an opinion.

Is there a point to this question? Regardless, the question is moot for I will not entertain moral question from someone that supports the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent Americans every year under the guise of so-called abortion.
The point is clear as is the question. As for what you will or will not entertain from me, you seem more than willing to return again and again, so obviously you continue to show your admiration for Cheney by following his practice of talking out of both sides of his crooked mouth.

Yes... White people; by denying the great achievements of many Americans who happened to be White and by inferring that America, because of White people, has not done anything worth being proud of.
That is your inference, not her meaning. But still, how sensitive White people must be these days...having been masters of the Eastern and Western Hemispheres since Rome, they are insulted to their core at a Black women having the temerity to be proud of achievement by a race of people once held as sub-human chattel and who built this country under the lash of those same White people. Ah, the case of vapors must be overwhelming!

Why would you be surprised when you support a man who attended racist meetings for over 20 years and yet not call him a racist? LOL.
Let me see...Are you speaking of the preacher who the American people heard and saw for weeks on end, who Hillary Clinton tried to use as a bludgeon against her opponent, who was touted by Fox, etc as the end of Obama...and yet still voted Obama into the presidency with an electoral landslide? Are the American people Black racists as well?

[SimonDavid]

:thumbsup: Damn, you're good.
...because he says what you want to hear, regardless of how full of crap it is.

[SimonDavid]

I'd much rather have someone who operates out of reason instead of emotion.
Which you have. The last bunch were the panicked over-reactors.

Regardless, we've had no attacks since 9/11.
And none between 1993 and 2001. Eight years. Count 'em. And keep hoping for that next one, so you can change your mantra from "Clinton did it!" to "Obama did it!".

What an unreasonable reply.

I suppose if we were nuked the TOTUS will bow and apologize that we "made 'em do it".
Respond, please, to what is written, not to what the voices in your head read to you.

The public was shown half of the picture. You see, Obamao released the information (and almost the pictures) on enhanced interrogation -- yet, redacted the information showing what such methods yielded. Now, tell me, if the enhanced interrogation was so worthless, wouldn't Obama release this information in order to prove that? Obviously, that is NOT the case. But now Pandora's box is open and the public wants to know the WHOLE story, not just the cherry-picked moonbat version.

I sincerely hope Cheney gets on camera and spills the beans about it all, or at least, leaks the information. It's coming, just a matter of time.
I am awaiting that as well.

Trial for WHAT? Protecting the country?
Criminal activity. Perhaps you have heard about it. It has been all over the papers and such.

And provided even more answers after....

We will know how much after we get the documents released.
Bring 'em.

Harry Reid prefers that over bringing them to the US, as do I.
As noted elsewhere, Mr. Reid prefers to not have any sleazy 30 second ads show up with his face on them surrounded by "Reid wanted terrorists to drive your kid's schoolbus!!!!". Cannot say that I blame him, but he is a coward, nonetheless.

Global divisiveness? You actually think other countries are individuals with "feelings" when they are nothing but separate entities with only their own interests in mind.
No, I think some of them are allies who deserve to be treated as allies, not mocked because they do not agree to go along with every harebrained scheme we concoct, particularly when they turn out to be right.

Furthermore, as to divisiveness, you can hardly top the Moveon/Soros/Chimpybushitler hate brigade from the left for the past eight years. As I told you once before, "the worm has turned".
The worm turned in 1992, the year the Right was horrified to see the Reagan debacle temporarily derailed.
You and your boyfriend here seem to have forgotten, if you are old enough to remember, the massive deficits Reagan (which showed us, according to Cheney himself, that they "didn't matter") piled up through his tax cuts mixed with extreme defense spending. No caterwauling about those...hypocrisy? As Bugs Bunny says, "ummmm, could be!"

Cheney never states Obama said that. He is stating a fact. If frilly speeches and pleas for compassion is all needed to stop terrorists, they would have stopped 30 years ago. Theo Van Gogh and the 200 children in Beslan would still be alive along with scores of others.
And war and dismantling of civil liberties stopped none of them, either.

The only way he can "call Cheney's bluff" is to release the documents he has hidden from the public until now. Time for some real "transparency!" LOL
Let us see them.

Your opinion.
The signs and wonders are everywhere. They cannot wait. You either, apparently.

If another attack were to occur, however, you can bet Obamao's support will dry up like air from a popped balloon. And it should because it will be his fault alone due to his foolish, weak behavior on the world stage.
There, see what I mean? You are anticipating it like a sailor anticipates shore leave on Tahiti. The lives lost will be worth it if you can blame Obama.

[SeedyROM]

Cheney for Potus, no way, he wouldn't run. I doubt he'd consider it seriously. I wouldn't vote for him but I like his several of his criticisms and I welcome more so as to educate and hopefully protect this nation from the inexpereinced PMOTUS.

Secretary of Defense, maybe. Cheney is a war dog who must be controlled by a higher power. There are many lies still circulating about Cheney that liberals have never substantiated with anything more than opinion and rhetoric. There are some Iraq war files I'd like declassified but till then the liberals have no credibility and they've had power since 2006 and nothing serious has surfaced...........there's a reason why and its not just classified secrets........the reality is that the far left has crafted so much fakeness that centrist and moderate dems do not want to embarass the party nor the nation.

Some want to keep the lies alive...........they marginalize themselves with each day, its quite amusing to watch the fakeness and phoney outrage while democrats pretend Clinton is innocent of torture, innocent of 9/11 mistakes and they pretend to be for the Constitution too.

[SeedyROM]

What "benefits him politically"? What do you think Cheney was engaged in? He is out of office, discredited and powerless. He is desperately attempting to resurrect his rotting legacy before he finally meets the same fate.
Obama is attempting to fix the Cheney disaster, who knows if he will be, or even King Solomon could be, successful. We already have had eight years of Cheney and look around. This is his legacy.
As for your "See-BS" endorsement of Cheney's classless diatribe, it was just the opinion of yet another Right Wing blogger (http://newledger.com/blogs/chequer-board/), the appearance of which on the CBS web site only serves to prove "liberal bias" to be the lie it has been.

Cheney has not been discredited, in fact Cheney is right on many issues of national security and Obama's lack of experience and academic shallowness make for good debate because Obama could in fact weaken the nation if he persists and follows the far left loones. Obama must shift to a centrist position and stop appeasing the loones who don't understand how this nation works. Apologizing is useless too.

Obama is not fixing the last eight years,Obama is continueing many Bush policies, Cheney too while simultaneously Obama is cheerleading to other nations with apologies and he's still bombing 2 countries and extending those wars. Talks of Iran, Pakistan and North Korea, which will Obama invade? Obama threatened Pakistan on the election circuit.

If Clinton had taken bin Laden into custody, he had 5 firm offers as well as several ops to snipe or bomb the monster then Cheney would not be in debate today. In fact, Clinton changed the course of history for the worst and he weakened the nation from within with national security changes, refusing to address daily CIA briefs and so on. Clinton is on the record in the 9/11 commission report admitting many many failures on his part. Bush gets some blame but Bush couldn't control the previous 8 years. Clinton was a surrender monkey to many terrorist acts on US soil and the USS Cole.

Liberal bias is alive and extreme and well documented. As well many liberals have admitted their bias with liberal tripes that read like apologist excuses for bad behavior. Liberal bias is no lie it is a concrete fact written in stone.

[Richard Poor]

...because he says what you want to hear, regardless of how full of crap it is.
It seems the only one "full of crap" is you... you just do not like it pointed out to you. :lmao2:

[radioguy]

And none between 1993 and 2001. Eight years. Count 'em. And keep hoping for that next one, so you can change your mantra from "Clinton did it!" to "Obama did it!".

Feb. 26, 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others.
Nov. 13, 1995, a car bomb exploded at the U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
June 25, 1996, a truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others.
Aug. 7, 1998, two truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring about 4,500.
Oct. 12, 2000, the USS Cole was heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it in Aden, Yemen. 17 sailors were killed.

And nobody is hoping for another attack here in the US... Many of us just fear that if the current administration isn't careful, another attack could happen.


Criminal activity. Perhaps you have heard about it. It has been all over the papers and such.

What criminal activity? Lets hear it, along with links to any evidence of such.

The fact is, there was no criminal activity pal. That's how come there haven't been, nor will there ever be, any hearings or trials against members of the former administration.


Bring 'em.

We (Cheney or republicans) can't "Bring 'em"... The only one who can release the documents Cheney is talking about, is Obama himself. And the only ones who can mount an investigation into what's in those documents are the democrats.

Based on the fact Obama refuses to release them, and the democrats won't investigate what they may contain, I'd say that Cheney's words are truthful and accurate.


No, I think some of them are allies who deserve to be treated as allies, not mocked because they do not agree to go along with every harebrained scheme we concoct, particularly when they turn out to be right.

You wouldn't be referring to France and Germany's opposition to our invasion of Iraq would you?

If that's the case, then may I suggest you read up on the 23 billion dollar "Oil for food" scandal that both France and Germany were involved in. That will explain the reason for their opposition perfectly.



You and your boyfriend here seem to have forgotten, if you are old enough to remember, the massive deficits Reagan (which showed us, according to Cheney himself, that they "didn't matter") piled up through his tax cuts mixed with extreme defense spending. No caterwauling about those...hypocrisy? As Bugs Bunny says, "ummmm, could be!"

The budget deficit's we had under both Reagan and Bush, were only a small percent of the GDP, and therefore manageable deficits. The one Obama is racking up, is huge... So there is no hypocrisy here pal.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_djgssszshgM/ScPl3zP1WoI/AAAAAAAAA2A/v1eTAvGTXC0/s400/cbo+budget+deficit.gif

And btw, Reagan's defense spending was responsible for ending the cold war by bankrupting the Soviet Union.


.

[Richard Poor]

If my "level" is so low why are you so anxious to stoop down? Surely you are a better man than I...but apparently not.I did not make a qualitative statement… I merely drew your attention to the fact that you were the first one to reach for that “level” – to which you are crying about.

Back and forth, back and forth. Please, you cannot seriously claim Bush is any sort of intellectual on any level. He has long shown contempt for intellectuals. We are talking about the same Bush, are we not? George W.? That one? At least he was smart enough not to embrace the hateful lies of racism… too bad Obama cannot say the same.

In the end, George W. Bush was smart enough to work to try and make America better and safer FOR ALL… too bad Obama, and his ill conceived social engineering attempts, cannot say the same.

There were eight years between those attacks. We are at the new eight year point soon...and the Right is salivating at the chance to blame Obama for the next one. Thanks in part to the policies which Obama is adamant about dismantling. No, the “Right” is not salivating at the chance to blame Obama for another attack – for that would entail the deaths many many Americans and the “Right” tends to put country and countrymen ahead of politics [too bad Obama and so many other Democrats cannot state the same] - rather the “Right” is sounding the alarm before another attack. However, Obama would rather play politics and risk another attack rather than do all he can to protect ALL Americans.

Unless they are on "your side"...then we have a different kettle of fish. Bush/Cheney are, according to the Right, responsible for nothing on their eight year watch; everything up to January 19, 2001 was "Clinton did it", everything after, no matter what, is Obama's fault. This is amazingly idiotic and childish thinking.Please do not confuse Bush/Cheney with Obama/Biden who STILL blame Bush et al whenever they come across a problem – note to Obama/Biden, no administration inherits a utopia – did Reagan cry about Carter [and he well could have] at every corner when he took over after the debacle known as the Carter administration? No, Reagan ran to be the President of the United States and he welcomed the challenge and ultimately worked to repair America. Obama, on the other hand, still plays politics and blames Bush whenever he gets a chance – because he puts politics ahead of America… and because too many fools are placated by his simply blaming Bush.

By the way, Obama, in one of his many interviews, noted that America’s [Clinton’s] response to Somalia was his impetus… he believed and I am trying to quote from memory that he was unsure of what America’s response would be to such a devastating attack; he ostensibly believed that America would run back home if confronted with casualties as they did in Vietnam, however he was unsure of how much America had changed, if at all, after the Vietnam War. It was not until Somalia that Obama became convinced that ‘America would run if given a bloody nose.’ … and so you see the genesis of 9/11 not because the “Right” or I blame Clinton… but, because the perpetrator of that TERRORIST [not man-made disaster] attack specifically mentioned Somalia and America’s lack of response. Sometimes, one needs to learn from their enemies so that they do not teach us the same bloody lesson again.

[QUOTE=SimonDavid]You should have laughed at their absurdity, and you should laugh at yourself for yours. Obama, regardless of your paranoid fantasy, is attempting to save the economy. Whether or not he will be successful is an open question. [u]He certainly has his hands full with the problems he inherited[/u]. He sought and took the job, however, so we will see what happens. If he succeeds I fully expect you to give credit to some Cheney speech.[/quote]Lol, one can only laugh so much at your absurdity… but, you have a seemingly endless supply. No, make no mistake, Obama is not trying at all to save the economy – his first priority is clearly his social engineering plan, which comes at the expense of our economy. Had Obama even cared the slightest for ALL Americans or the economy he would not be spending like a drunken sailor when the economy is so weak.

Lol, again with that “inherited” crap – that is the liberal answer, to America’s problem spend as if there was no deficit and blame Bush. This liberal policy is just utter garbage.

[QUOTE=SimonDavid]Then you cannot read. The context was Cheney's legacy, as apt an example of putrid necrosis as any imaginable.[/quote]Lol, I can read… perhaps, it is you who cannot write. Since you willingly defend stupidity and racism, chances are that you are the one that is wrong.

[QUOTE=SimonDavid]Clinton raised taxes and the dot com boom took off. [/quote]Ladies and gentleman here is an example of [i]Post Hoc[/i] reasoning at its finest – just to let you know, the dot.com boom would have exploded with or without Clinton.

Moreover, your numbers are off in regards to Clinton, his tax hike in ’93 did not stimulate the economy ;for two years the economy struggled on with Clinton’s burden [that played an important role in Republicans winning Congress] and in ’95 the dot.com boom began which was followed by tax cuts in ’97 in order to allow for citizen spending and economic growth.

Strike 1.

[QUOTE=SimonDavid]Tax rates throughout the 1960s were far higher than they have been since 1980, and another economic boom occurred then. Since 1980 there have been two recessions under Reagan/Bush and an economic collapse under Bush/Cheney. Obviously raising taxes is not the deviltry you pretend it to be. [/quote]Wow, you seem to be the king of fallacious reasoning… strike 2. The reason for this is because they were elected to fix problems created by liberals. The economy moves in cycles and when liberals try to tax and spend because they promise everything, even if it is bad for America, when running for election, the economy goes down – then Republicans are often voted in to fix the problem. Even after Clinton, the economy was having problems because the dot.com bubble busted. Bush had to deal with that, the economic effects of 9/11, and the fiscal effects of Katrina while trying to stop terrorism… so in the end, Bush did a TREMENDOUSLY great job managing the economy at a pivotal point. Contrast that to Obama who, in less than a year and without a major catastrophe, has already seemingly outspent Bush in his attempts to destroy America.

[QUOTE=SimonDavid]You probably really know that nothing is instantaneous in economics, everything done, whether to or for an economy, takes time to cycle through. Obviously the US economy was strong enough to withstand the Bush administrations early disasters, but not strong enough to sustain them for a full two terms.[/quote]Wrong again for so many reasons… see above. By the way that is Strike 3… you are out and I am done with you, your lies, and your erroneous reasoning.

However, just for fun, I will continue to comment on the rest…

[QUOTE=SimonDavid]Who promoted the real estate bubble in a desperate attempt to keep something positive in an otherwise moribund economy throughout the past four years? Whose idea of handing out $1200 checks as "stimulus" proved a failure?[/quote]As noted above, the economy was in dire straits, and the plan was very successful for it kept the economy going when it could have completely tanked for the reasons noted above.

[QUOTE=SimonDavid]A fine idea; except that the Bush plan of "Spend consumers spend" encouraged consumers to spend until they had nothing else with which to spend, then stopped. When spending is the engine of the economy and no one in the private sector is doing so, who is left to spend?[/quote]If no one has money to spend, who has money to employ people; and if there are no jobs, who has money to tax? In the end, giving people more of their money back so that they can spend it is far better that raising taxes on people who too often live from paycheck to paycheck or companies who will look to let people go in order to save money.

[QUOTE=SimonDavid]First, to what "terrorist" has Obama bowed? Our "ally" in Saudi Arabia? The one Bush kissed? Is there no end to your nonsense?[/quote]Lol, only a complete fool would call reality and truth nonsense while spewing endless lies and propaganda.

Kissing among equals is part of the culture there… however, bowing before someone is a sign of inequality or limitation…

Moreover, a war was once fought so that Americans would never have to bow before a king.
[QUOTE=SimonDavid]The war in Iraq was, according to many not blinded by Bush Cult dogma, recruitment tool for Middle East terrorists beyond even their fevered imaginations. Terrorism [i]increased[/i] world wide under Bush/Cheney. This is an irrefutable fact, not an opinion. [/quote]Tell me of liberal-one, what specific policy did Bush engage in before 9/11 that make terrorists hate America? What act did he do that spawned those terrorists to grow the moment he took office? Well?

In the end, only a fool would believe your lies for terrorism grew before Bush and under Clinton – who ran while young American Marines were dragged naked through the streets of Somalia.

[QUOTE=SimonDavid]The point is clear as is the question. As for what you will or will not entertain from me, you seem more than willing to return again and again, so obviously you continue to show your admiration for Cheney by following his practice of talking out of both sides of his crooked mouth.[/quote]Again, you seem to have confused Cheney with Obama – perhaps you can recall on your own some of his broken campaign promises. In the end, Obama told people what they wanted to hear knowing full well that he would not do what he was saying…

[QUOTE=SimonDavid]Let me see...Are you speaking of the preacher who the American people heard and saw for weeks on end, who Hillary Clinton tried to use as a bludgeon against her opponent, who was touted by Fox, etc as the end of Obama...and yet still voted Obama into the presidency with an electoral landslide? Are the American people Black racists as well?[/QUOTE]No, but a large portion of Americans are racist and another part are drunk on liberal brainwashing and were thus willing to support a racist.

[Richard Poor]

Feb. 26, 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others.
Nov. 13, 1995, a car bomb exploded at the U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
June 25, 1996, a truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others.
Aug. 7, 1998, two truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring about 4,500.
Oct. 12, 2000, the USS Cole was heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it in Aden, Yemen. 17 sailors were killed.

And nobody is hoping for another attack here in the US... Many of us just fear that if the current administration isn't careful, another attack could happen.




What criminal activity? Lets hear it, along with links to any evidence of such.

The fact is, there was no criminal activity pal. That's how come there haven't been, nor will there ever be, any hearings or trials against members of the former administration.




We (Cheney or republicans) can't "Bring 'em"... The only one who can release the documents Cheney is talking about, is Obama himself. And the only ones who can mount an investigation into what's in those documents are the democrats.

Based on the fact Obama refuses to release them, and the democrats won't investigate what they may contain, I'd say that Cheney's words are truthful and accurate.




You wouldn't be referring to France and Germany's opposition to our invasion of Iraq would you?

If that's the case, then may I suggest you read up on the 23 billion dollar "Oil for food" scandal that both France and Germany were involved in. That will explain the reason for their opposition perfectly.





The budget deficit's we had under both Reagan and Bush, were only a small percent of the GDP, and therefore manageable deficits. The one Obama is racking up, is huge... So there is no hypocrisy here pal.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_djgssszshgM/ScPl3zP1WoI/AAAAAAAAA2A/v1eTAvGTXC0/s400/cbo+budget+deficit.gif

And btw, Reagan's defense spending was responsible for ending the cold war by bankrupting the Soviet Union.


.
:thumbsup: