May 21, 2009

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

"And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for — our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity."

Cheney responds to Obama. Read the full text.

220 comments:

1 – 200 of 220   Newer›   Newest»
traditionalguy said...

At last a man speaks for our times.

John Lynch said...

I wonder about all the pressure we're putting on the military and CIA to kill rather than capture. Normally, prisoners are valuable assets. They are sources of intelligence, and it pays to treat them well to encourage other enemies to surrender.

The current situation, it seems to me, creates a perverse incentive. If you can't interrogate, and you have nowhere to put them, or even worse there's the possibility a terrorist leader might go free on some legal technicality...it might be better just to hit them with a drone attack.

I don't quite see how blowing up an Al Qeada leader with his whole family is more humane than capturing and torturing him, but that's the logic the war is producing. One gets much criticism and angst and public chest-beating, the other is page 2 news.

Bob Sacamano said...

Listen to the full thing here:

CSPAN: Cheney at AEI

Pogo said...

Cheney: "After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized."


That this needs to be said at all is a scandalous indictment of the Democratic party.

John said...

It's nice to hear how a thoughtful adult sounds, as opposed to a vapid apparition of a man.

Henry said...

Cheney is wrong. The "arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights" aren't for the benefit of the terrorists. They are for the benefit of our lukewarm European allies -- and even moreso for lukewarm Americans who are asked to support these small wars over the long-term.

dbp said...

I think he is right, but it is possible for terrorists to come to another conclusion:

From their point of view:

These Americans would not be debating the justice of their methods if they were even slightly concerned that we might beat them.

I imagine they would be furious that we regard them like a mosquito in our house, "should we use bug spray? "It may harm the environment after all". I'm sure they would rather we were more concerned. Their problem is that when we get concerned, we go find them and kick the crap out of them.

dbp said...

And our problem is that we don't do anything about them until after they have killed 3,000 of us.

garage mahal said...

Thanks Dick, but I think we got it from here.

Dale said...

Gee, I WONDER where I can get a balanced synopsis of the 2 national security speeches, the one from Obama and the one from Cheney.
`

Let's try the New York Times! Dueling Speeches: Obama and Cheney!'

I wonder which speech the Times will show me was more thoughtful and better in it's reasoning and effectiveness.
`

Hmmmm, I can't possibly figure that out in advance . . .

Dale said...

Thanks Dick, but I think we got it from here.`

Comment cataloged for easy finding when the next attack on US soil takes place.

Hoosier Daddy said...

they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for — our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.".

What a blinding revelation. I said the exact same thing in the thread about the Muslim terrorists picked up in NYC.

We captured tried and convicted Ramzi Yousef who was behind the 1993 WTC bombing. Followed all the legal proceedings, jury trial and all that and what did we get? A string of Islamic terrorist attacks from our African embassies, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and finally with 9/11.

So when Obama tells me that we're not safer because waterboarded three Muslim headhackers I just want to puke.

AJ Lynch said...

It is very difficult to win a debate with Cheyney. He speaks clearly, logically and forcefully yet he never raises his voice.

I wonder if he has ever lost a debate.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Thanks Dick, but I think we got it from here..

From the lips of a Clinton syncophant. Think Hillary has suggested the ninja assault yet?

LonewackoDotCom said...

Perhaps he covered it, but the hearts-and-minds aspect of things has, AFAIK, been nearly ignored. For instance, if most potential Muslim terrorists thought they wouldn't get their virgins, few would be terrorists. H&M was also not a major part (or even less) of the Iraq invasion.

hdhouse said...

Hey if you go stand outside Penn station in the city just about any evening after rush hour you can see miserable displaced shadows of men with cups in their hands begging for money and attention. they have nothing to say, unfortunately, and have a pitiful life by enlarge. some of the more paranoid and delussional offer advice in the line of "hey mack, let me tell ya' something". otheres curse the heavens or demon rum for their plight.

enter dick cheney. a lying pig of a man who hasn't told anyone the truth since he started running around to secret locations and carrying a gasmask. you would follow him? you would listen to him?

i'd advise the drunk outside the train station before that putz.

Lem said...

Oh common Althouse.

We all know Al-Qaida has reasonable political annalist (same as we do) that just know Obama is just speaking for US internal political benefit.

Al-Qaida knows Obama doesn’t mean all that about harsh interrogations, waterboarding or closing down Gitmo ;)

daredevil-66 said...

the liberals just want Dick Cheney to go away, NOW. You see he's supposed to sit back while they dump buckets and buckets of shit on his head and be fine with it. They know this is a battle they are losing, the argument is lost and they just want to "move on" but that darn Cheney won't let us!

MadisonMan said...

I think that every time Cheney opens his mouth, people are reminded of Bush's Presidency. I don't think that's a good thing for the Republican Party at this point.

We'll see if that remains true. Certainly, if even a tenth of the number of people killed in terrorist attacks on American soil that occurred during the Bush/Cheney administration die in a terrorist attack during the next 4 (or 8 years, depending), things could change.

rocketeer67 said...

I think that every time Cheney opens his mouth, people are reminded of Bush's Presidency. I don't think that's a good thing for the Republican Party at this point.

Really? You think that? I'm being serious.

I knew wasn't going to like Obama, but I wasn't expecting to miss Bush, either.

Turns out I don't.

Shockingly, turns out I do miss Cheney.

hdhouse said...

daredrivel:

no WE DO NOT WANT CHENEY TO GO AWAY. on the contrary he is the face of the Bush administration..for those who remember who that is or was....

And Cheney compares fine speech-making with what? jibberish, half sentences, unfamiliar words? they might not listen to or heed what Obama is saying but at least you can understand him.

As to the ultimate straw dog of "attack on Obama's watch"...don't you lizards rememeber 9-11 and how that was Clinton's fault? Forget that? So I think with Bush turning the world upside down, we can probably blame trace blame to him for years to come.

You little fellas can't have it both was much as you would like.

John said...

Does anyone remember when Al Gore went on Larry King to debate H. Ross Perot in 1993 over the issue of the day NAFTA? That was some real made for TV entertainment. I think going on TV to debate the opposing side is a really good thing for the VP to do. How about this? Let's take the current VP and put him on cable TV to debate Chaney about interrogation techniques. We always hear how the Democrats are all geniuses. Let's let Biden show what a genius he is. Surely he could beat some dumb Republican.

John said...

I was at lunch with my wife today. And on the TV above the bar was MSNBC “live coverage” of the Chaney speech. That is okay except that they were not playing his speech. They were showing Cheney speaking while Chris Matthews and a bunch of talking heads talked over Cheney and “analyzed the speech”. Later they were going to talk to David Axelrod about the speech. It was like a Rodney King beat down with them playing the cops and Cheney being King. It was just amazing. They could not even play the speech and then jump on him. It was a coordinated PR attack orchestrated by an alleged “news organization”. Cheney must really terrify the media and the Democrats to warrant that much attention.

Salamandyr said...

I think that every time Cheney opens his mouth, people are reminded of Bush's Presidency. I don't think that's a good thing for the Republican Party at this point.I think it's pretty wonderful for the Republican Party if they can keep him from being caricatured. The Bush Administration's biggest problem was their complete lack of concern with defending themselves and their policies.

Cheney is calm, measured, and erudite. When he actually bothers to speak, and when he gets to speak unfiltered by a hostile media, he persuades. That makes him dangerous to the new Administration, who up to this point have done remarkably well at controlling the narrative.

hdhouse said...

yes John...surely he can. Cheney is psychotic...can't you tell? ohhhh....sorry.

John Lynch said...

Biden is actually good at debating. He looks and sounds good. He's very good at making complete bullshit sound authoritative.

John said...

If Cheney is so obviously wrong, why doesn't the media just play his speech and let it speak for itself? Instead, they barely play the speech and get at 30 people to scream at the top of their lungs how horrible it is. It is amazing how someone supposedly so embarassing and out of touch, scares the living shit out them so much.

John said...

"He looks and sounds good. He's very good at making complete bullshit sound authoritative."

Well, he was a Senator.

hdhouse said...

Salamandyr said...
"..and when he gets to speak unfiltered by a hostile media, he persuades."

You mean of course when no one can ask a question?? Or does this limit his public interviews to Hannity, Mike Savage and Rush?...
.... with oodles of FauxNoise free time.

Putz? ya'betcha!

John said...

“If I had a Muslim summit, I think that I can speak credibly to them about the fact that I respect their culture," Obama said, "that I understand their religion, that I have lived in a Muslim country, and as a consequence I know it is possible to reconcile Islam with modernity and respect for human rights and a rejection of violence. And I think I can speak with added credibility.”

I put this statement in the other thread but it bears repeating. That is Obama talking about Muslims. THe man has never been anywhere or done anything. He is so niave and egotistical, he really thinks he can talk his way through anything. His supporters are no different. They sit fat, dumb and happy in this country and think everyone else is just like them and can be reasoned with. They have never traveled much outside the country and have no idea, beyond PC fairy tales, what the rest of the world is actually like.

John Lynch said...

Here's a wild, wild speculation.

Say Cheney really believes we're going to get hit again. Say he honestly wants to prevent it.

What would he do differently than he's doing now?

We're assuming this is just partisan debate, but suppose he's right? What should he do?

Lem said...

I think that every time Cheney opens his mouth, people are reminded of Bush's Presidency. I don't think that's a good thing for the Republican Party at this point.

At this point.. at this point?

MM that's precisely the kind of political thinking Chaney is repudiating.

When? At what point, at what point is the security of the American people fodder for political gamesmanship?
Chaney believes that it is safe for the left to play politics only because they no longer believe there is a threat. Wich is fine btw – you can believe whatever you want to believe.
Just dont say and act like what the former administration did under the gun was criminal, now that it's politically safe and convenient to say so and not expect a forceful response.

garage mahal said...

From the lips of a Clinton syncophant. Think Hillary has suggested the ninja assault yet?.

That sounds like something Cheney would try. So, no.

I'm hard pressed to see how this fool has an ounce of credibility with beltway pundits at all. Why would they even listen to him? I'm reminded of Schwarzkopf in his book describing Cheney as a "civilian who knew next to nothing about military affairs, but he'd been watching the Civil War documentary on public television and was now an expert."

But that wasn't the only gift that Dick Cheney had for Norman Schwarzkopf. Having figured out that the general was being too cautious with his fourth combat command in three decades of soldiering, Cheney got his staff busy and began presenting Schwarzkopf with his own ideas about how to fight the Iraqis: What if we parachute the 82nd Airborne into the far western part of Iraq, hundreds of miles from Kuwait and totally cut off from any kind of support, and seize a couple of missile sites, then line up along the highway and drive for Baghdad? Schwarzkopf charitably describes the plan as being "as bad as it could possibly be... But despite our criticism, the western excursion wouldn't die: three times in that week alone Powell called with new variations from Cheney's staff. The most bizarre involved capturing a town in western Iraq and offering it to Saddam in exchange for Kuwait." (Throw in a Pete Rose rookie card?) None of this Walter Mitty posturing especially surprised Schwarzkopf, who points out that he'd already known Cheney as "one of the fiercest cold warriors in Congress.Source here.

k*thy said...

So Dick says that vigorous debate, constitutional rights and the rule of law is a weakness? Color me surprised.

(CNN carried the speech.)

John said...

garage mahal,

George Marshall wanted to drop the 82nd Airborne into Paris during D-Day. Eisenhower wisely talked him out of it. Military strategy always looks different from Washington. Of course, if it had been up to the majority of Democrats in Congress, Saddam would have kept Kuwait. That strikes me as a lot bigger sin that suggesting some goofy strategy to Schwarzkopf.

AJ Lynch said...

Hdhouse:

Enough about Cheyney. What did you think of Obama's performance?

Was he eloquent, magnificent? Did he have command of his facts (I hear he called Gates "William")?

Was he forward looking or did he spend a good portion of the speech blaming Bush?

MadisonMan said...

Shockingly, turns out I do miss Cheney.

How can you miss him if he won't go away?

Lem said...

Actually Garage you’ve inadvertently just described a man trying his best to end the first war in Iraq as quick and as painless to American soldiers as humanly possible.

Thanks.

Joe said...

Dick Cheney was a Representative, not a Senator.

Salamandyr said...

Salamandyr said...
"..and when he gets to speak unfiltered by a hostile media, he persuades."

You mean of course when no one can ask a question?? Or does this limit his public interviews to Hannity, Mike Savage and Rush?...
.... with oodles of FauxNoise free time.

Putz? ya'betcha!

No, I do not mean when no one can ask a question. I mean, as you perfectly well know, when no one asks questions, no one bothers attempting to be fair, and just presenting his arguments in the most unfair way possible, taking his quotes out of context and basically not bothering to let the reader (or viewer) get an understanding of what Cheney's views are.

Considering that the Democratic party was too scared to appear at a debate where the questions were written by Fox News, I think your accusations of political cowardice are pointed in the wrong direction.

As to the putz comment, I'm not sure if you mean Cheney or me. Since he's not here, I'll assume I'm the object of your dispprobation and tell you to kindly fuck off.

Hoosier Daddy said...

And Cheney compares fine speech-making with what? jibberish, half sentences, unfamiliar words? .

That's funny. I mean really hdhouse. You pretty much just described your own posts.

traditionalguy said...

Garage...Except that they went there in trucks instead of chutes, that is exactly where the 82nd were sent to Nazarya Airforce base. And then BushI then made the stupid decision to leave Saddam in power to block Iran. BushII finally finished it, not being one to let a crisis go to waste himself.

Jen said...

"And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for — our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity."

So we should have no dialogue, no legal discussion, and it should all be quite covert.

rocketeer67 said...

How can you miss him if he won't go away?

Sorry. I was using shorthand, and you're right to seek clarification.

What I was trying to say is that listening to Cheney makes me miss having somebody, somewhere - any elected official, at any level in the federal government - that knows what is going on and is not a total moron.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Normally, prisoners are valuable assets. They are sources of intelligence, and it pays to treat them well to encourage other enemies to surrender..

How exactly do you encourage Muslim terrorists who are seeking martydom to surrender?

Hoosier Daddy said...

That sounds like something Cheney would try. So, no. .

Actually garage, it was suggested by her husband when we was working very hard to get Osama.

NKVD said...

hdhouse wrote "by enlarge". Nice. I think you meant "embiggened".

hdhouse said...

Salamandyr said... .."fuck off".

ahh as well and plainly spoken as it seems, the putz label was intended for Mr. Cheney...I'm always so amazed that conservatives or those who carry their water have such a low threshold.

It must have something to do with rampant paranoia meeting up with object rejection.

TosaGuy said...

Cheney is winning the conversation on this issue. If he were losing it then the Dems would want MORE Cheney instead of less.

Cheney is effective only because he is speaking on this issue and most people in this nation respect Dick Cheney's knowledge on this issue even if they do not like him or agree with him. The public would tune him out if he suddenly ventured off of national defense and started defending Bush Admin education policy or the like.

The nation benefits from a legitimate and stimulative debate on this and other issues. Both sides were laid out today for the American people. We should demand more of this.

John said...

"So we should have no dialogue, no legal discussion, and it should all be quite covert."


That is a good question. I don't think Cheney is quite saying that. But what he is saying is that even if such debate is necessary, let's not pretend that it is making us any safer.

At some point you need to make a decision and live with it. The longer you dither and wait, the weaker you look.

hdhouse said...

John said...
"if it had been up to the majority of Democrats in Congress, Saddam would have kept Kuwait."

that is just a stupid thing to say John. Just stupid. Shame on you.

TosaGuy said...

So what do lefties think of Obama's idea of 'preventive detention'?

Bruce Hayden said...

So we should have no dialogue, no legal discussion, and it should all be quite covert.'

Yes. Three terrorists were subject to enhanced interrogation maybe 6 years ago, and as a result, by all reputable evidence, we are safer as a result.

Cheney pointed out in his speech why arguing about how many rights these terrorists should have in U.S. courts is counter-productive.

But as a result of all this disclosure, the terrorists now know what the limits are on interrogation techniques that can be used against them, and can be trained accordingly. As he pointed out, all this is now part of their operations manuals.

John said...

"John said...
"if it had been up to the majority of Democrats in Congress, Saddam would have kept Kuwait."

that is just a stupid thing to say John. Just stupid. Shame on you."

What do you mean? The majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress voted against authorizing the use of force to expell Saddam for Kuwait. That means that had it been up to them, Saddam would have kept Kuwait. I don't write history. I just read it. Sorry if you don't like the way some of it played out.

John Lynch said...

Cheney will only be vindicated by another attack. I hope he's wrong.

He sounds like Churchill in 1936.

Hopefully, he'll remain in the wilderness and won't prove to be right in the end.

MadisonMan said...

Cheney makes me miss having somebody, somewhere - any elected official, at any level in the federal government - that knows what is going on and is not a total moron.

You are too kind to Cheney. Cheney is a moron too. If he were not a moron, don't you think the problems of the Bush Administration could have been headed off?

I'll go even farther and say all politicians are morons. Not initially of course, as it takes some kind of smarts to get yourself elected. But being in the cesspool of DC, where so much is focus-group/poll/lobbyist driven and divorced from the real world, causes moronicity.

But I guess you just said he wasn't a total moron. That's damning with faint praise. I agree with you.

John said...

"Cheney will only be vindicated by another attack. I hope he's wrong."

Me too. I think that is the reason why the media is trying so hard to marginalize him. If there is another attack, Cheney is setting it up for the Dems and the Messiah himself to be responsible for it. From a cynical point of view, it is poltically brilliant. Let's hope BO is luckier than he is good.

hdhouse said...

TosaGuy...."respect cheney on this issue"....

what issue? what issue is he making other than commiting what he certainly would have called treasonist behavior if it had happened when he as in office.

The man is insane. Deal with it.

Lem said...

So we should have no dialogue, no legal discussion, and it should all be quite covert.

Well, we couldn’t even if we tried – see Chaney’s comment about the NYT publishing our secrets.
See Nancy Pelosi acting as though she was always in the dark now that the politics has shifted.

RickLinATL said...

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

It doesn't matter to me that Cheney said this, or the fact that I find Cheney arrogant and creepy. The fact is, I believe what he's saying to be true, because I've had my eyes open to the bombings, the beheadings; the willingness these terrorists have to sacrifice anything and anybody for a system of beliefs that can have no place in our world.

We can argue all day about whether it's okay to torture someone who would murder your whole family remorselessly if given the opportunity.

But I think if most of us were intellectually honest, we'd rather have a not-too-bright-but-trigger-happy sheriff on the lookout for these piece-of-shit extremists than a "let's hug it out" liberal, no matter his intellectual pedigree. (Even Clinton was too slow in Somalia, and was humiliated by his inability to pull the trigger when it needed to be pulled).

When someone says he wants to kill you, you owe him no obligation to let him try before you pre-emptively send him to his awaiting virgins.

Your first obligation is to protect your family (and, I believe, your nation). When you know someone's gunning for you and you fail to act, forcefully and with finality, but instead wait until innocents are dead, are you not complicit in the death of those innocents, which deaths you could have prevented had your trigger finger not been occupied by so much hand-wringing?

This doesn't solve the issue of torture/don't torture, but Cheney was absolutely right about the main equation here: Terrorists cannot be talked down from the bell tower. So just fucking shoot them already.

John said...

"If he were not a moron, don't you think the problems of the Bush Administration could have been headed off?"


Because the problems facing the world post 9-11 were just so fucking easy. I guess that is why BO has solved them all and come up with such easy sollutions.

Lem said...

When you threaten to prosecute former DOJ lawyers for giving a legal opinion and selectively release classified memos in an attempt to convict them you OBAMA are ensuring the shutting down of debate.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I don't write history. I just read it. Sorry if you don't like the way some of it played out.

You're being pretty charitable giving hdhouse the benefit of the doubt that he knows history.

traditionalguy said...

RickLinATL...That was eloquently written.

PatCA said...

Barack (The Kid) Obama leads with an idealistic jab; Dick (The Realist) blocks with a fact, then another fact and another; and finally sends him to the canvas with his haymaker: his undisputed record of success.

Decision, Cheney, by a mile.

John said...

"You're being pretty charitable giving hdhouse the benefit of the doubt that he knows history."

That is the great thing about being a leftist; you neve have to admit you were wrong. You just wait a few years and pretend you never took the position. All the Dems supported Gulf War I and were fierce anti-communists. No Democrat ever considered the Soviet union and the US to be moral equals. And they all supported Reagan in confronting them. Great how it works that way.

AJ Lynch said...

I bet Cheyney has genius-level IQ.

hdhouse said...

John said...
"that is just a stupid thing to say John. Just stupid. Shame on you."

What do you mean?"

don't confuse the wars...the neo-cons here are confused enough.

Brooklyn Redneck said...

Cheney: A great American

John Althouse Cohen said...

This post makes an interesting contrast with this one about how Obama's military commissions policy is hardly any different from Bush's.

Also, I'd love to see a cite for Cheney's implication that Obama, or anyone in his administration, believes that "appeals to reason" have the power to make terrorists give up.

hdhouse said...

AJ Lynch said...
I bet Cheyney has genius-level IQ."

Who is that AJ? Marvin Cheyney? From Dallas? or did you mean Cheney? as in upright Dick?

huh huh...your funnin' me with that IQ suff ain't ya/

Palladian said...

"Also, I'd love to see a cite for Cheney's implication that Obama, or anyone in his administration, believes that "appeals to reason" have the power to make terrorists give up."

They don't believe it. They don't believe much of anything that they say. They just say things.

Palladian said...

"huh huh...your funnin' me with that IQ suff ain't ya/"

Not good to make fun of someone's intelligence when you write like a complete drooling moron.

Really, are you mentally handicapped? Are there any non-moron liberals around here to talk to?

hdhouse said...

"VINDICATED BY ANOTHER ATTACK"

The utter fools on here who swallow that line of discussion should be waterboarded for stupidity. There is going to be another attack. Pure and simple. It's not if it is when.

Having an attack, God forbid, does not make Cheney right other than for the event itself. One could argue that will the trillions he spent and oversaw going into his wars, there should be a terrorist alive anywhere to cast a stone.

guess he didn't do such a good job if he is still worried.

John said...

"John said...
"that is just a stupid thing to say John. Just stupid. Shame on you."

What do you mean?"

don't confuse the wars...the neo-cons here are confused enough."

The majority of Demcorats in Congress voted against authorizing force in the first Gulf War. A large majority of them did so. If you don't believe that, look it up. Are the words too big for you to understand? Your response is completely nonsensicle. It is not even funny. It is just bizzare.

John said...

"Having an attack, God forbid, does not make Cheney right other than for the event itself. One could argue that will the trillions he spent and oversaw going into his wars, there should be a terrorist alive anywhere to cast a stone."

You could argue that. But no one will beleive you. If there is another attack, BO won't even bother running for re-election in 2012. Fairly or unfairly, he now owns the issue. That is the political brilliance of what Cheney is doing.

hdhouse said...

John Althouse Cohen said...
This post makes an interesting contrast with this one about how Obama's military commissions policy is hardly any different from Bush's."

John, you are a lawyer right? and you don't seem to be reading the fine print here do you? Why don' tyou make a little list of the similarities between Bush's commissions/structure/duration/reach and Mr. Obama's. Just jot it right down...two coloumns...now connect lines between the similar attributes....with me so far?

garage mahal said...

So we get hit on Cheney's watch but he will be vindicated if we get hit again? That can only make sense to Dick Cheney.

Harsh Pencil said...

hdhouse,

John wrote "Of course, if it had been up to the majority of Democrats in Congress, Saddam would have kept Kuwait."

You replied "that is just a stupid thing to say John. Just stupid. Shame on you."

To which John replied "What do you mean? The majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress voted against authorizing the use of force to expell Saddam for Kuwait. That means that had it been up to them, Saddam would have kept Kuwait. I don't write history. I just read it. Sorry if you don't like the way some of it played out."

You gave a snarky reply, but have not really replied. The fact is that a democrats in Congress did vote against authorizing force in the first gulf war, which is obviously what John meant when referred to Saddam keeping Kuwait.

So again hdhouse, what is wrong with John's statement ""Of course, if it had been up to the majority of Democrats in Congress, Saddam would have kept Kuwait."

Palladian said...

"You gave a snarky reply, but have not really replied."

He can't reply. All he does is splutter and drool. It's actually amazing that he can type.

John Lynch said...

Cheney is still full of it by not calling it torture. He's torturing the language, and the truth.

EDH said...

Hoosier Daddy said...


"Normally, prisoners are valuable assets. They are sources of intelligence, and it pays to treat them well to encourage other enemies to surrender.."

How exactly do you encourage Muslim terrorists who are seeking martydom to surrender?


My observation: enthusiasm for martyrdom is inversely proportional to the "value" of the target. The higher up the target, the less enthusiasm to die for the cause.

John said...

"So we get hit on Cheney's watch but he will be vindicated if we get hit again? That can only make sense to Dick Cheney"

No. We never took the threat seriously until we were hit in 2001. That changed after 9-11. Now we have reverted back to not taking the threat seriously. If we get hit again, it will be the fault of the people who stopped taking the threat seriously.

You have a point to some degree. The fact is that BO played people like you for suckers and hasn't changed much about Bush's policies. Further, even with the best efforts, terrorists will get lucky sometimes. 9-11 wasn't Bush's fault and the next attack may not be Obama's fault.

But none of that will matter. Obama will be held responsible for it. That is the price Dems will pay for spending 8 years agrueing that everything Bush did was bad and the dark night of fascism. It is not fair, but too bad. Sometimes life is like that.

John Lynch said...

Especially since he criticizes liberal euphemisms of terrorists and terrorism.

John said...

"John, you are a lawyer right? and you don't seem to be reading the fine print here do you? Why don' tyou make a little list of the similarities between Bush's commissions/structure/duration/reach and Mr. Obama's. Just jot it right down...two coloumns...now connect lines between the similar attributes....with me so far?"


Why don't you follow your own advice and explain how they are different instead of talking shit? Althouse seems to be making a reasonable point when he says that Obama's military commissions are not much different than Bush's. They are both military commissions, something that your side spent the last five years claiming were un American. So, if they really are different, explain how? Also explain how the very idea of military commmisssions was so bad last year but okay now. Wasn't the party line in 2008 that all these guys belonged in Federal District Court?

phx said...

Such a crock of Cheney. We don't have high standards for the benefit of the terrorists, we have high standards for OUR benefit. Disgraceful.

dbp said...

hdhouse said...
John said...
"if it had been up to the majority of Democrats in Congress, Saddam would have kept Kuwait."

that is just a stupid thing to say John. Just stupid. Shame on you.

2:00 PM

The U.S. Senate had approved the the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution by a vote of 52 to 47 on Jan. 12, 1991 (the majority including 42 Republicans and 10 mostly Southern Democrats). The House of Representatives approved the measure 250 to 183, with 164 Republicans and 86 Democrats in favor of the use of force, 179 Democrats, 3 Republicans and 1 independent opposed.

Care to revise and extend?

MadisonMan said...

I bet Cheney has genius-level IQ.

Wiki (if you believe that kind of thing) says it's 147. Actually, that it's "reported to be somewhere around 147."

I will repeat that a very very smart man like Cheney should have been able to anticipate some of the Bush Administration's problems. That he didn't (or did and was somehow unable to make the case) speaks volumes about DC.

Palladian said...

"We don't have high standards for the benefit of the terrorists, we have high standards for OUR benefit."

A lot of fucking good that will do when my city gets hit again.

John said...

"Such a crock of Cheney. We don't have high standards for the benefit of the terrorists, we have high standards for OUR benefit. Disgraceful."


What does that mean?

Shanna said...

It is very difficult to win a debate with Cheyney. He speaks clearly, logically and forcefully yet he never raises his voice. .

This is one of the things I like best about Cheney, his speaking style. He just kind of says what he means, without trying to make it flowery, or any BS. He doesn’t get overly emotional about most stuff. It’s an interesting contrast to most politicians style, and I’ve always found it fascinating that people have made him into this sort of “darth cheney” because its so strange! Whether or not you agree with him, I wish more politicians would emulate his style. Maybe it doesn’t win elections, but it’s damn refreshing.

AJ Lynch said...

Mad Man:

I did not know Wikipedia had that on it for Cheyney.

Thanks.

John said...

Cheney is an absolutely fearless speaker and debater. I saw him on some inane Sunday News show once. The host told him that a "majority of Americans thought the war in Iraq was not justified". To which Cheney responded "so". What a ballsy response.

hdhouse said...

Harsh Pencil said...
"So again hdhouse, what is wrong with John's statement ""Of course, if it had been up to the majority of Democrats in Congress, Saddam would have kept Kuwait."

Oh Harsh...so harsh....look fella...it is a very popular tactic to toss in some other bomb from some other war into a discussion as a way to snarkily hurl...the first gulf war has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. it was tossed in as a "gotcha" and you know it. ..(i'll leave out bush's iraq amabassador virtually inviting saddam into kuwait...you remember saddam...our one time ally? cheney's friend?)

that kinda thing..that endless "well your guys did such and so over there and yada yada" while the discussion is here and now.

think before you jump harsh pencil.

mcg said...

We don't have high standards for the benefit of the terrorists, we have high standards for OUR benefit.

Damn straight. That's why we seek the best fighting forces, weapons, and yes even interrogation techniques. We have high standards, and they are for OUR benefit.

hdhouse said...

John said...
Cheney is an absolutely fearless speaker and debater. I saw him on some inane Sunday News show once. The host told him that a "majority of Americans thought the war in Iraq was not justified". To which Cheney responded "so". What a ballsy response."

It was a stupid and arrogant response. If Cheney is "ballsy" juxtapose his 5 deferments. He is ballsy with other people's lives...ohhhhh isn't that what is meant by cowardly? Did I mistake something here?

John said...

"Oh Harsh...so harsh....look fella...it is a very popular tactic to toss in some other bomb from some other war into a discussion as a way to snarkily hurl...the first gulf war has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. it was tossed in as a "gotcha" and you know it. ."

No. Read my post. Garage Mahal or one of the nameless leftist rabble on here had given a story about how Cheney had some out there strategy ideas during the first Gulf War. To that I responded that lots of people in Washington have had out there strategies (see Marshall's plan to drop the 82nd Airborne on Paris). And I said that whatever Cheney's sins, they pale in comparison to the fact that if it had been up to the Democrats' Saddam would have kept Kuwait.

If the first Gulf War has nothing to do with this, take it up with Gargage Mahal.

mcg said...

Let it be clear that what I consider "OUR benefit" is probably not the same as what phx considers it to be.

John said...

"It was a stupid and arrogant response. If Cheney is "ballsy" juxtapose his 5 deferments. He is ballsy with other people's lives...ohhhhh isn't that what is meant by cowardly? Did I mistake something here?"

No it wasn't. It was a perfect response. Whether people thought the war is justified in some poll, has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether it really was justified. It was a stupid meaningless point and Cheney was absolutely right to call bullshit. If you want to argue the facts, then argue them. But appealing to a poll is not doing that.

hdhouse said...

Jesus John, we can all google and we all saw that drop troops into Paris thing...

what is your point?

John Lynch said...

JAC is right in that Obama is mostly doing the same things while trying to put distance between himself and the previous administration, and that if we note that we should also note that Cheney's attacks don't have much substance.

However, that distance will grow very large if we actually get attacked again. Obama is making a distinction between himself and Bush, but that also means not sharing responsibility for the next attack.

Does anyone else find it odd that Blogger spell check still underlines "Obama?"

NKVD said...

hdhouse wrote "two coloumns".

JAC was with you until you used a made up word.

John said...

"Jesus John, we can all google and we all saw that drop troops into Paris thing...

what is your point?"

The point is that lots of people in Washington have, being removed from the situation, come up with crazy strategies. Marshall was still a great general, despite his idea of dropping the 82nd on Paris. In the same way, Cheney still did a great job in the first gulf war, even though he had some crazy strategy ideas that were never acted upon.

mcg said...

JAC is right in that Obama is mostly doing the same things while trying to put distance between himself and the previous administration, and that if we note that we should also note that Cheney's attacks don't have much substance.

Maybe the point is having more people make JAC's point.

John said...

"However, that distance will grow very large if we actually get attacked again. Obama is making a distinction between himself and Bush, but that also means not sharing responsibility for the next attack."


Exactly. OBama, by painting himself as the unBush, now owns any attack on the country. The fact that he is lying most of the time when he claims that and hasn't actually changed much, won't help him.

mccullough said...

Did Obama's speech sway the Dem Senators who are against his closing the Gitmo prison?

Have Iran and North Korea returned Obama's calls yet.

And given Obama's speech, why is it that not all detainees nee enemy combatants at the Gitmo prison won't be tried in federal court?

They are dangerous but we can't convict them? Why should we take Obama's say-so on that. Try them or release them (or release them after they're acquitted) is the traditional relief for habeas corpus.

Again, this guy is a coward. Prosecute these guys or release them, and prosecute W. and Cheney for waterboarding KSM and the other two guys.

That's what I'd do if I believed the same bullshit Obama does. But Obama is not principled. He's a fucking hack.

Hoosier Daddy said...

John you may as well move on. Hdhouse is the resident lunatic here. Sometimes he actually writes in complete sentences and occasionally says something that makes sense. Then eventually the pills wear off and he finds it harder to type and think coherently when the nurse puts him in the straighjacket.

Harsh Pencil said...

hdhouse,

I'm an idiot. It seems everyone else around here just assumes you are some combination of rude, stupid, crazy or unserious. I actually wanted to engage you because I thought it might be productive. Now I know better. Like I said, I'm an idiot.

Sloanasaurus said...

It's scary that Obama is in charge of securing this nation. Obama is a complete boob. He beguiles himself into beliving his own false rhetoric.

We also know that Obama won't do everything and anything to defend you and your children. Obama will only be half-assed.

Pogo said...

Bush was vilified, and rightly so, for lacking the ability to unify the American public on this issue. The times called for a Churchill to make clear what we are fighting for, and why we should follow this path.

For alot of reasons, including endless media sniping and a simple inability to make great speeches, this did not happen.

Obama, as I see it, is failing for the very same reason. Despite an obsequious press, his speeches do not electrify, nor do they unite.

He now knows what Bush knew, and is copying the Bush model in many respects. In trying to distance himself from it however, he looks weak and indecisive.

He, too, is no Churchill.

MadisonMan said...

and hasn't actually changed much, won't help him.

Won't help him what?

I hope that question is clear.

AJ Lynch said...

JAC don't know jackshit. Heh. Just kidding but I wanted to lighten the attytoods here a bit.

dbp said...

"However, that distance will grow very large if we actually get attacked again. Obama is making a distinction between himself and Bush, but that also means not sharing responsibility for the next attack."

If we are attacked again, Obama will emphasize how not much has really changed in intellegence-gathering. If we are not attacked, he will claim is is because the old confrontational ways have been hopey-changed.

John said...

"and hasn't actually changed much, won't help him.

Won't help him what?

I hope that question is clear."

Avoid sole responsibility for the next attack if such an attack occurs. The reality is that Obama hasn't changed much. But the rethoric is that Bush was and evil fascist and Obama is kinder and gentler. If there is another attack, that rethoric will come back to bite him.

Sloanasaurus said...

Obama Logic:

If I get nuked and all my children die a horrible death in front of my eyes from radiation poisoning, at least I can feel good upon the destruction of my entire family that I did not torture my enemy.

Cheney Logic:

Kill your enemy before he kills you.

AJ Lynch said...

Sloan:

Agreed because Obama is the kid who gave the bully his lunch money. And he believes that solves his problem and the bully won't escalate schoolyard bullying.

Big Mike said...

GWB chose not to fight back against the Soros-funded calumnies heaped upon his head, and is holding to that choice. I'm certain that his reasons were good ones, at least to him.

Dick Cheney is under no such constraints, and may even be enjoying himself a bit, after 8 years of having to bite his tongue.

I've said elsewhere that I'm really enjoying the way that this administration is finding itself forced to engage people who are not going to be candidates in 2012 (e.g., Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and that ever-lovin' Rush Limbaugh). Who's next? Coulter? Glenn Reynolds?

So far the "targets" seem to have done a fine job of fighting back, using a strategy of telling the truth.

I personally think that Barack Obama should go ahead with a Muslim summit. GWB met more than once with Muslim leaders and nothing good happened, but perhaps BO has the magic talisman. He deserves the chance to take his best shot.

But I'm not betting the mortgage money that he'll be successful.

John said...

"I've said elsewhere that I'm really enjoying the way that this administration is finding itself forced to engage people who are not going to be candidates in 2012 (e.g., Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and that ever-lovin' Rush Limbaugh). Who's next? Coulter? Glenn Reynolds?"

Of course if there is an attack, Cheney would be as they say rehabilitated. At this point he has nothing to lose.

John Lynch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Lynch said...

Sloan: I don't think Obama believes that.

I think he does believe that a lot of what the Bush administration did was an overreaction. I think, from what he's said, that he believes the Iraq war in particular was not necessary.

I also think he believes that the threat does not justify the methods used by the Bush administration. I believe that he would do the same thing if he thought it necessary. I think that in his view they were unnecessary because Al Qeada isn't that dangerous.

I personally think that because he wasn't the one in charge on 9/11, he has a different perspective. Perhaps being outside that event gives him more insight, or perhaps not having had to make those decisions means that he can play Monday morning quarterback. It's just not clear yet who is right.

Jason (the commenter) said...

I don't agree with Cheney's position, but I think his speech wins the day. He made his point clearly and articulately. It's so nice to hear someone who can do more than just string words together.

phx said...

"Damn straight. That's why we seek the best fighting forces, weapons, and yes even interrogation techniques. We have high standards, and they are for OUR benefit."

Hey, I favor our side having the best fighting forces, weapons and even interrogation techniques. I also favor America having the best values, principles, and highest aspirations. Best "torture techniques" is probably not something I want my country to be known for.

(PS can anyone tell me why my italic tags always return the message "Your HTML cannot be accepted: Tag is not closed. I always put the tag at the beginning and at the end. Is there a workaround, or should I just go screw myself?)

Seven Machos said...

Well, you had to know that this thread was going to be lively and busy.

Why is it that the left insists on calling Cheney's opinions lies? It's very strange. The fact is that he is a man with a compelling worldview, whether you agree or not. The thing to do, if you want to win the argument, is to confront the view itself, and not demonize the man as a liar, simply for expressing the view. That is a ticket to electoral disaster.

Seven Machos said...

phx: bracket thingy, i, bracket thingy, text, bracket thingy, slash, i, bracket thingy

garage mahal said...

Dick Cheney is under no such constraints, and may even be enjoying himself a bit, after 8 years of having to bite his tongue..

Like telling the world we're open for another terrorist attack.......so now is your time? I could see why Cheney would enjoy that. What a patriot.

hdhouse said...

Harsh Pencil said...
hdhouse,
" Now I know better. Like I said, I'm an idiot."

If you insist. I didn't say it but it is your call.

Pogo said...

The media's relentless anti-Bush methods have had one enduring effect, however.

It has made Obama's attempts to speak to the nation as a whole damn near impossible to carry out. We remain one nation, sharply divided.

Seven Machos said...

John Lynch -- The Iraq War was absolutely unnecessary. It was possible, and wise because it was possible.

Our military presence next to Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al is doing wonders in the region. Compare, for example, to our military presence in South Korea. Do you think it has made a qualitative difference in our own defense and in the lives of South Koreans?

Sloanasaurus said...

Obama is probably the weakest leader we have ever had. There are thousands of years of history written on how successful leaders have behaved.

Apologizing for your people and showing that you are weak is not one of them.

Seven Machos said...

Garage -- What substantively about what Cheney has said do you disagree with? Calling someone evil and stupid is not discourse.

phx said...

It has made Obama's attempts to speak to the nation as a whole damn near impossible to carry out. We remain one nation, sharply divided.I could be wrong about this, but I think the divisions are closing and SOMEBODY'S party is just getting more and more marginalized.

phx said...

Thank you Seven.

Seven Machos said...

phx -- We'll see in 2010. I don't think Obama's margin of victory was the landslide it has been painted to be. I note that Democrats in many states are quite conservative. I further note that Republicans got defeated largely because they were governing like Democrats and neither articulating nor practicing conservative or libertarian principles.

When the Republicans get back to being Republicans, they'll get votes.

John said...

"Like telling the world we're open for another terrorist attack.......so now is your time? I could see why Cheney would enjoy that. What a patriot."

Suppose for a second that he actually beleives that to be true. What would you propose he do? Sit by quietly and hope for the best? Isn't dissent the highest form of patriotism?

elHombre said...

hdhouse wrote (2:49): "look fella ...it is a very popular tactic to toss in some other bomb from some other war into a discussion as a way to snarkily hurl...."

hdhouse wrote (2:52): "If Cheney is 'ballsy' juxtapose his 5 deferments. He is ballsy with other people's lives...ohhhhh isn't that what is meant by cowardly?"

Wait. Cheney had deferments from the Iraq War? Oh no. That was "some other war" and this is just hdhouse's hypocrisy on the fa-a-ast track.

John said...

"Wait. Cheney had deferments from the Iraq War? Oh no. That was "some other war" and this is just hdhouse's hypocrisy on the fa-a-ast track"

Of course Obama is staying in Iraq and purposely escallating the war in Afghanistan. I wonder how many of his chickenhawk supporters will join up to help the cause? HD House are you or your children going to volunteer to fight Obama's wars?

Seven Machos said...

Democrats who weren't in wars and who make war? Good. Republicans who weren't in wars and who make war? Bad.

I note the continued absence of actual substantive critique of Cheney's argument. Is this irrelevant personal attack crap really the best the left can do?

Sad.

garage mahal said...

Suppose for a second that he actually beleives that to be true. What would you propose he do? Sit by quietly and hope for the best? Isn't dissent the highest form of patriotism?.

If we he was interested in keeping the country safe he would either keep it to himself, or, talk to people in the current administration privately about his concerns.

Kirk Parker said...

John,

"Let's hope BO is luckier than he is good."

It could hardly be otherwise.

Seven Machos said...

Garage -- Why would he keep to himself what he thinks is causing terrible danger? If your neighbor's house is on fire, do you keep it to yourself?

Moreover, your comment is silly. We live in a democracy. Obama isn't going to change policy because Cheney tells him to. That's absurd. Policy will change when voters vote a different course.

Please up your game. This is gravely disappointing.

Jeremy said...

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

Translated: Diplomacy and negotiation is just a waste of time. Especially when we can just drop bombs?

And that's exactly how we got into this mess.

Seven Machos said...

Michael -- What is the mess? Please define your terms. Althouse is trying to turn you into a decent commenter, after all.

Good luck with that, by the way, Althouse.

And why the name change?

John said...

"Translated: Diplomacy and negotiation is just a waste of time. Especially when we can just drop bombs?

And that's exactly how we got into this mess."


No. Diplomacy is a waste of time unless we are willing to back it up by dropping bombs. If it were just a question of talking things out, there wouldn't be any conflict. Of course it is not. There are people in the world who mean to do us harm. They will continue to do so unless and until we make it in their interests to stop. Unless you just plan to pay protection money, force is the only means avaialable to give our enemies a reason to compromise.

hdhouse said...

John said...
"HD House are you or your children going to volunteer to fight Obama's wars?"

Sure John. I'll follow you into battle any time. (watch your back).

I've got 10 yrs of service in John...how about you?

Jeremy said...

"I note the continued absence of actual substantive critique of Cheney's argument."

What exactly is his argument? That he and George did a terrific job?
That they found Osama Bin Laden? That terrorism is no longer a concern?

One of the primary reasons Obama was elected relates directly to what Americans have seen from Bush/Cheney, so why can't we allow the new administration a chance to do their job?

Cheney is doing exactly what he's been doing for the last 30 years...trying to scare Americans.

Harsh Pencil said...

Translated: Diplomacy and negotiation is just a waste of time. Especially when we can just drop bombs? No. Diplomacy and negotiation is just a waste of time sometimes with some people.

All talking can ever do, and this may not be a small thing, is clear up misconceptions. Do you actually believe that misconceptions are a big part of the problem here, and that talking has a chance of clearing them up?

Seven Machos said...

HD -- How many does Obama have? He is conducting a war (and a half) or so, after all. How many did Clinton have? He killed thousands of innocents bombing Iraq and simply all over the Balkans.

Some advice: you can't use a line of argument against only people you dislike and blithely ignore the same thing in people you like. It makes you look irrational and foolish.

By the way, HD, what is it about Cheney's substantive comments that you disagree with?

Seven Machos said...

Michael -- If you wish to know what Cheney's substantive argument is, I suggest that you read or listen to what he has said. This you obviously have not done, or are not mentally able to do.

I am not here to be your digest.

mccullough said...

Jeremy,

Diplomacy and negotiation work well with westernized democracies and not so bad with Russia and China.

With Iran, North Korea, Al-Qaeda, not so much.

Obama has a one-size fits all foreign policy. No nuance in there. He's not much of a thinker.

Henry Buck said...

Talking and diplomacy may also allow parties to avoid disputes when each side is willing to (1) give up something it values; and (2) get something else that it values more. Talking and diplomacy can allow you to figure out what those things are. Unfortunately, what the other side wants is something we cannot give up, and vice-versa. Our "non-negotiables" are in direct and irreconcilable conflict.

Seven Machos said...

Our "non-negotiables" are in direct and irreconcilable conflict.This is 100 percent gold. We can talk all we want to Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea. The result will be nothing, because there are fundamental, implacable differences.

Good luck with all the talking, though.

John said...

"Sure John. I'll follow you into battle any time. (watch your back).

I've got 10 yrs of service in John...how about you?"

I was an active duty Army officer for nine years including the first tour in Iraq. I am still in the reserves and plan to do a tour in Afghanistan if I can keep my wife from divorcing me if I do.

Sloanasaurus said...

I believe that he would do the same thing if he thought it necessary. I think that in his view they were unnecessary because Al Qeada isn't that dangerous.The problem with your hoping that Obama would "do the right thing" is that you can only hope that he is lying and only "trying to appease the left" with his rhetoric. The problem with "hoping" rather than actually taking seriously what he says, is that it can get you killed.

The middle class in Germany believed that Hitler's anti-semetic rhetoric was really only a ploy to keep the right wing happy and that as soon as hitler took power he would "moderate" his policies.

I know that moderates have assumed the same for Obama. So far, especially on the domestic front, they have been wrong.

Titusiseatingfageyogurtthankyou said...

Liberals don't want Dick Cheney to go away.

More please.

NightBastard said...

MadisonMan said...
I think that every time Cheney opens his mouth, people are reminded of Bush's Presidency. I don't think that's a good thing for the Republican Party at this point.
In the spirit of MM's sincere constructive criticism, I offer the following sincere constructive criticism to Obama: Please go ahead with your apology for other Americans war crimes against the Nazis tour next week in Germany. Americans love that shit and it really helps the Democrat Party.

Big Mike said...

@phx, you asked or should I just go screw myself?

Please! Do not serve up such a soft pitch belt high across the center of the plate.

Couldn't resist.

Being serious for a moment, I disagree that the divisions are closing. Gallup's poll announced yesterday shows a change of 9 percentage points, from an 18 point edge to the Democrats to parity today. That's in the last two months. The Pelosi-Obama-Reid troika had a chance to kill the Republican party with kindness, but they couldn't bring themselves to do it, and now it's going to come back.

I'm a Baby Boomer, so I've seen the Republicans in much worse shape than today, and I remember seeing stories about how bad off the Democrats were back in the mid-1990's.

Also, if the Obama administration's policies turn out as badly as many of us expect, then I expect to see many Democrat candidates finding themselves the focus of a "send a message to Washington" campaign in 2010. If that's not enough to take back the House, then certainly it'll be enough so that both Pelosi and Obama will have to be vastly more conciliatory than they are today.

Of course, Barack Obama's policies may turn out much better than I expect and 2010 may be as bad a year for Republicans as 2008. We shall see.

Jeremy said...

mccullough said..."Obama has a one-size fits all foreign policy. No nuance in there. He's not much of a thinker."

I have no idea what you base this on. Have you attended any of the meetings or negotiations conducted by Obama?

As to saying "He's not much of a thinker"...after eight years of the fool you voted for twice...that is laughable at best.

Obama: Columbia/Harvard/First African American president of the Harvard Law Review//Constitutional Law Professor/Senator/President of the United States.

Duh.

NightBastard said...

Titusiseatingfageyogurtthankyou said...
Liberals don't want Dick Cheney to go away.

More please.
When Cheney loses true Republicans like Titus, you know he's been on the stage too long. Go away Dick! Stop making sense!

Seven Machos said...

Michael -- Bush went to Harvard and Yale. Why are you not trumpeting his academic resume as well? And why don't you mention Occidental?

Moreover, all the people responsible for the current economic malaise have tremendous academic resumes.

This line of argument is one of your sillier ones. Nobody cares where a guy went to college. What matters if whether his polices are good.

Obama's policies are disastrous.

Why the name change?

Jeremy said...

95% of the comments here are nothing more than a regurgitation of the same right wing bullshit we've been hearing from the GOP and Dick (and I do mean "Dick") Cheney today.

All you and others here are trying to do is somehow justify the the horrible job Bush/Cheney did by criticizing everything from Obama's middle name to the fact that he (as if nobody else does or did) use of a teleprompter.

Your ridiculous notion that we should never negotiate or that diplomacy just doesn't work with terrorists is just that; ridiculous.

I've asked before and will ask again: If Obama is such a loser...and other than the standard bitching and whining...what is the GOP's counter argument or any rational solution to anything Obama is facing right now?

GFL

Jeremy said...

Seven Machos - It was in response to another idiot's comment that Obama was "not much of a thinker."

Can you read?

Seven Machos said...

What has Obama done to suggest that he is a thinker? What has he thought about, or though through?

A lot of fools can do well on a law school exam. It's a little self-contained game where you put puzzle pieces together and apply regurgitated law to the result.

Obama does not understand economics. His foreign policy is Bush's foreign policy. Where is the thought?

Why the name change?

Jeremy said...

Big Mike - "Gallup's poll announced yesterday shows a change of 9 percentage points, from an 18 point edge to the Democrats to parity today."

Sorry...new polling:

Pew Research Center - 05-21-09

In seven short years, the American electorate has radically changed, as voters' priorities have shifted to the economy and away from such wedge issues as abortion and gay rights, as well as away from the threat of terrorism and from the war in Iraq, according to a comprehensive survey released Thursday morning by the Pew Research Center.

From 2002 to 2009, voters' partisan identification has moved from virtual parity -- 43 percent Republican and 43 percent Democratic at the height of George W. Bush's popularity in the immediate aftermath of 9/11...

...to a massive Democratic advantage today of 53 to 36, a 17 percentage point split, by far the largest difference in the past two decades.

Eric said...

I could be wrong about this, but I think the divisions are closing and SOMEBODY'S party is just getting more and more marginalized.

You are wrong. Party affiliation is dead even now at 32%. So far Obama's election has done wonders for the Republicans.

Seven Machos said...

Michael -- What does that have to do with what Cheney said? Please try to focus. I know it's hard for you, given your intellect.

Why the name change?

Sloanasaurus said...

what is the GOP's counter argument or any rational solution to anything Obama is facing right now?Dont show weakness to our enemies

Dont close Guantanamo

Don't apologize for America

Don't bail out the auto companies.

Stop bailing out the insurance companies and banks.

DOn't bail out state governments.

Don't guarantee muni bonds.

Spend stimulus money on real infrastructure projects and not pet projects for unions.

Be fiscally repsonsible. Do not propose a budget that doubles the national debt in 5 years.

Don't pass a massive cap and trade cap increase on the american people.
Support school choice in DC

Don't raise taxes.

Don't nationalize health care to solve the problem of the uninsured.

Appoint judges who are apply the law with a blindfold and not judges who are empathetic to specific people or groups.



etc...

Obama is the biggest boob ever to hold the office. America made a big mistake in electing him. Our standard of living will collapse by at least 20% over the next 10 years because of it.

Big Mike said...

@Jeremy, you wouldn't happen to have a link to the Pew poll?

Jeremy said...

Eric -

Pew Research Center - 05-21-09

In seven short years, the American electorate has radically changed, as voters' priorities have shifted to the economy and away from such wedge issues as abortion and gay rights, as well as away from the threat of terrorism and from the war in Iraq, according to a comprehensive survey released Thursday morning by the Pew Research Center.

From 2002 to 2009, voters' partisan identification has moved from virtual parity -- 43 percent Republican and 43 percent Democratic at the height of George W. Bush's popularity in the immediate aftermath of 9/11...

Seven Machos said...

Sloan -- In case any Republican operatives read this, I emphatically disagree. Our platform is: the Democrats are taking your freedom and money and security away. We will give it back to you, and give you more and more.Thus:

We will maintain Guantanamo to keep you safe from terrorists.

We love America and will advocate for it.

We will allow bad businesses and poorly run cities to fail.

We expect states to take care of themselves much more.

Be fiscally repsonsible. We will get a surplus.We will allow you to spend money where you want.

We support vouchers for poor people.

Support school choice in DC

We want you to keep the money you earn.

We want you to choose your own health care.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/obamas-new-electorate-pol_n_206249.html

elHombre said...

From 2002 to 2009, voters' partisan identification has moved
...to a massive Democratic advantage today of 53 to 36....

Is anybody stupid enough to believe only 11% of the electorate identifies as independent or third party?

Jeremy, et al.

Jeremy said...

elHombre - "Is anybody stupid enough to believe only 11% of the electorate identifies as independent or third party?"

Take it up with Pew Research.

Speaking of being unbelievable: Does anybody believe there were really WMD? Chemical wagons? Mountains of anthrax?

Pot/Kettle

Jeremy said...

OBAMA: 50 GITMO DETAINEES CLEARED FOR TRANSFER

NightBastard said...

...to a massive Democratic advantage today of 53 to 36, a 17 percentage point split, by far the largest difference in the past two decades.and yet the taxhikers got drubbed 70 to 30 in the only kind of poll that counts 2 days ago, but who you gonna believe?

Jeremy said...

NightBastard said..."...and yet the taxhikers got drubbed 70 to 30 in the only kind of poll that counts 2 days ago, but who you gonna believe?"

And the dummy speaks his little mind...again.

You keep repeating this ridiculous notion as if the California props were presented by the Democrats, and not the California legislature, lead by the Gover...a Republican.

And what in the world would any of the California props have to do with Democrat versus Republican leanings?

Duh.

Eric said...

Like I said, dead even.

NightBastard said...

Califonia is just a bunch of reich-wingers!

Ann Althouse said...

"When Cheney loses true Republicans like Titus, you know he's been on the stage too long."

Ah! A conundrum! My answer: Cheney needs to keep talking.

Big Mike said...

@Jeremy, I think if I were ever to click on a link to Huffington Post, my right index finger would drop off my hand in shame and try to inch its way out the door.

While you were finding the link I went directly to the poll itself via the magic of Google. The numbers you quote are extracted from a diagram at the beginning of Section 1 of a lengthy report.

But! The overall focus of the poll is trends over the past 20 years, not right this instant. The Gallup poll is a current snapshot based on numbers from a couple weeks ago. The Pew poll includes this note at the bottom of page 1: "Results of the current study are based on interviews conducted March 31 - April 21." So the figures they show aren't that different from what Gallup was reporting for the same time period (e.g., 53 - 34 edge to the Democrats for April 6-9).

Most especially, Section 1 includes this bon mot: "In more than 7,000 interviews conducted in the first four months of 2009, 37% of Americans describe themselves as politically conservative – roughly double the number who say they are liberal (19%). This ratio has remained largely stable over the past nine years..."

And for phx, if you're still around, you might go take a look at the disparity between Republicans and Democrats from 1949 to 1982. The present gap is nothing, next to that.

former law student said...

Cheney made a self-serving speech, short on specifics, and long on references to 9/11 and scorn for Obama's policies. One specific factoid, that KSM beheaded Daniel Pearl, was surprising, because another man has been convicted of that crime. Is the purpose of waterboarding to extract a confession, or to get accurate information?

Instead of just passively listening to his speechifying, let's put Cheney under oath, and interrogate him. In fact, why not waterboard Cheney, and get at the real truth about the efficacy of waterboarding?

former law student said...

We want you to choose your own health care.

Heck, all that the Democrats want to do is give you one more choice.

Choice is good, right?

Henry said...

George Marshall wanted to drop the 82nd Airborne into Paris during D-Day. The misuse of airborne troops during WWII was almost total. By D-Day, Eisenhower, for one, knew better, but only because of harsh experience.

Seven Machos said...

FLS -- You do not understand the single-payer concept. Nor do you understand what a market is.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike said..."Jeremy, I think if I were ever to click on a link to Huffington Post, my right index finger would drop off my hand in shame and try to inch its way out the door."

Then don't.

But they post articles, commentaries and opinions from every major news organization in the world...including, I would think, a few of your favorites.

When you read the Washington Times or Weekly Standard or the WSJ and they provide an article or whatever from a publication you don't particularly like, do you stop reading or does your finger fall off?

I think you should read through all kinds of newspapers and blog sites...I do.

Eric said...

Nor does he, apparently, understand the meaning of the phrase "self-serving".

former law student said...

7M: You do not understand Obama's position on health care. It is not the single-payer concept

Seven Machos said...

FLS -- Is it like The One's position on gay marriage?

Big Mike said...

@former_law_student you asked "why not waterboard Cheney, and get at the real truth about the efficacy of waterboarding?"

Can I have a go at answering? The "harsh interrogation methods" (including waterboarding) are not used to gather evidence for trial. They are worthless for that, and banned by the 5th amendment. The point is to quickly gather actionable intelligence. So you ask for a list of safe houses where jihadists, are hiding. You get a list. You check it out. Maybe he's still resisting and is lying -- there is no house at some addresses, or ordinary houses with ordinary families at others. Eventually you get houses that really are safe houses, and you maybe even capture more terrorists. Even if you don't that's a bunch of safe houses that aren't safe anymore. That's how it works.

If there had been plenty of time, you could use ordinary techniques and then the information gathered could be used in court. But there's more than enough on KSM to sentence him to life in solitary confinement without what we got by waterboarding.

Make sense?

Big Mike said...

@former, I am in my 60's and I know of no government-run healthcare program in any nation in the world where care isn't rationed by age. If Obama can show otherwise (without vague references to "hope" or his rhetorical trick of saying that he "rejects the false choices" that aren't so false when you come right down to it) then I'll pay attention. Otherwise I mean to fight.

Jeremy said...

former law student said..."7M: You do not understand Obama's position on health care. It is not the single-payer concept..."

FLS - They don't WANT to understand anything Obama has to say or do.

They just want to bitch and whine because they have no alternative plans or solutions.

Just look at how many constantly bitch and whine about, of all things...Obama's use of a fucking teleprompter.

As if George W. Bush (who hid out for months at a time, seldom if ever addressing the nation or the press) never used one.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike said..."former, I am in my 60's and I know of no government-run healthcare program in any nation in the world where care isn't rationed by age."

Western Europe doesn't.

Big Mike said...

@Jeremy wrote "but they [meaning the Huffington Post] post articles, commentaries and opinions from every major news organization in the world...including, I would think, a few of your favorites.

Actually, truth will out. I formerly visited Huffington, TPM, and even Kos back in the day. They certainly do comment and offer opinions, but from a uniformly left wing lunatic perspective that repels me. As bad as Ann Coulter, but not nearly as funny. And with substantially less evidence of intelligence.

So I don't go there anymore.

Big Mike said...

@Jeremy, you're simply wrong. The western European country I know best is the UK, and I assure you that healthcare in the UK is rationed by age. The older you are, the longer you wait. It's my understanding that the same is true in the Scandanavian countries.

JAL said...

gm quotes: I'm reminded of Schwarzkopf in his book describing Cheney as a "civilian who knew next to nothing about military affairs, but he'd been watching the Civil War documentary on public television and was now an expert."
So how would you describe Barack Obama wrt "military affairs?"

Mmmmm?

"Clueless" comes to mind. Totally clueless.

If I let myself think about it (which I try not to) it curdles my blood.

JAL said...

Less than 5 seconds. First link on google [NHS rationing]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/249938.stm

Health

Patients suffer from NHS rationing

Some patients are denied hospital care

Patients are suffering and some have died as a result of rationing in the NHS, doctors have claimed.
A survey of almost 3,000 doctors by Doctor and Hospital Doctor newspapers found that one in five doctors know patients who have suffered harm as a result of rationing.

More than 5% of GPs surveyed also said they knew of patients who had died as a result of being denied treatment on the NHS. [snip]

Do your homework.

Jason said...

Jeremy,

You do realize that appealing to popular opinion is considered to be a logical fallacy, no?

former law student said...

doesn't know what "self-serving" is

I have summarized the speech so as to point out the self-serving parts.

Why I, Cheney, was playing in the national security sandbox:

Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition

I'm not gonna let Obama talk smack about our decisions:

when [Obama] faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward... [But to] truthful[ly]telling of history.

I'll just flip through the paragraphs:

People thought we were wrong back then, but we only were trying to *sob* save the country.

I didn't see your precious Clinton stop any Islamic terrorists.

In fact Clinton made things worse than before -- that pussy.

Things were bad -- real real bad.

We were sure that people like the ones who had learned how to fly airliners -- except they skipped the lessons on how to land, and who used box cutters to turn airliners into missiles -- were somehow going to get nuclear weapons.

I had a big fat target painted on my face that day. Luckily I could skedaddle underground right away.

We decided to show how tough we were by kicking some Iraqi ass.

We also carried out some secret spying that has SAVED YOUR LIVES, but I can't get into any details.

Fucking New York Times.

Tough interrogations were necessary, I pushed for tough interrogations, I was right, but I can't get into any details.

Obama's wrong.

The interrogations I pushed SAVED YOUR LIVES but that jerk Obama's keeping all the success story from you. Boy, if I could only go into the details, you would shake my hand and buy me a cigar.

Don't go after the interrogators and the lawyers who said it was OK.

Only three guys ever got waterboarded -- the head slicer...

Pelosi knew all about it but she didn't raise one peep, so get off my back.

Abu Ghraib was totally not authorized. Don't blame us for what those enlisted men did.

Don't listen to those whiners who say waterboarding is torture.

We had to torture them to SAVE YOUR LIVES. So what? They're a bunch of terrorists anyway.

Did I mention that those terrorists have upgraded from box cutters to portable nukes?

Obama uses euphemisms

Obama wants to shut down Guantanamo. Doesn't he know that those terrorists are the worst humans ever? Worse than Tim McVeigh, even. They can't even breathe the same air as an American.

Torture's as American as apple pie, so Kwitcher belliakin.

I was right.

I was right.

I was right.

We KEPT YOU ALIVE.

Obama's HIDING all the good stuff that came out of the torture sessions.

We saved your lives.

Being waterboarded is better than being killed in Iraq, like 4300 of our folks.

Terrorists are bad, and don't deserve decent treatment.

In conclusion, thank me.

elHombre said...

Jeremy,et al: elHombre - "Is anybody stupid enough to believe only 11% of the electorate identifies as independent or third party?"

Take it up with Pew Research.

Speaking of being unbelievable: Does anybody believe there were really WMD? Chemical wagons? Mountains of anthrax?

Non sequitur Jeremy. Odious troll.

Eric said...

Meh. You see self-serving, I see a man who wants what's best for his country.

Bruce Hayden said...

FLS

The problem with your list of what Cheney said is that you never bother to refute any of it. Rather, you seem to be asserting that the mere recitation of the list is sufficient to make your point. It doesn't. Rather, it makes Cheney's. He has provided facts. You have supplied veiled innuendo. You also left out a lot of the intervening stuff that was apparently inconvenient.

For example, Cheney points out that there is no connection between abu Ghraib and enhanced interrogation. Rather, he pointed out that it is offered by the left as related in order to obscure, taint, and confuse by association. And, he not only pointed out that they were enlisted, but that those enlisted personnel at abu Ghraib violated U.S. law, military law, and signed treaties, and also that they went to prison for it. That is just one example of how your "simplification" of what Cheney said is more obfuscation than informative.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 220   Newer› Newest»