tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post3161282421226537903..comments2024-03-28T11:12:03.111-05:00Comments on Althouse: "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."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger220125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53406644248518149702009-05-23T14:50:40.734-05:002009-05-23T14:50:40.734-05:00Cheney's doing a great job, and so is his daughter...Cheney's doing a great job, and so is his daughter Liz. She's shredding her MSM interviewers.<br /><br />Waterboarding isn't getting more recruits for Al Qaeda. They get more recruits when they have successful attacks against America, Americans, American military bases and ships, etc.<br /><br />H/T Bush-Cheney-CIA-our military-etc.<br /><br />Well done.<br /><br />Waiting with dread until The Big O learns the hard way that nice talk accomplishes jack shit. It just sends the signal that we're ready for our dhimmitude now! Come on in fellas!kentuckylizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08110491371985845560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58172707997155592352009-05-23T01:10:39.658-05:002009-05-23T01:10:39.658-05:00Has anyone noticed that the Obama-Cheney debate on...Has anyone noticed that the Obama-Cheney debate on national security was orders more edifying than any of the staged presidential campaign "debates" in memory? The absense of "production values" and the absense of media interlocutors probably accounts for some of this...the speakers probably account for the remainder.josilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07524198898201924702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36182959249028909252009-05-22T19:02:21.032-05:002009-05-22T19:02:21.032-05:00"hdhouse said...
I'm not trying to be a smar..."hdhouse said...<br /><br /> I'm not trying to be a smarty here..."<br /><br />That would be a stretch by any measurable test for being a smarty.<br /><br />"but frankly if I see a substantive comment I'll let you know."<br /><br />That requires that you actually have a deft enough intellectual acumen to even be able to see a substantive comment must less understand one when it's made. You either have it or you don't. You just don't have what it take.Methadrashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07828014989470539375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62010933175533267002009-05-22T15:24:39.658-05:002009-05-22T15:24:39.658-05:00@hd, you are stretching even my considerable patie...@hd, you are stretching even my considerable patience. Go <A HREF="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/05/21/the_10_punches_dick_cheney_landed_on_barack_obamas_jaw" REL="nofollow"><B>here</B></A> for a Brit's view of Cheney's speech as compared and contrasted wtih Obama's.<br /><br />There was ample substance, if you had wit enough to see.Big Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831645119853118904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52134581560583266952009-05-22T14:02:23.880-05:002009-05-22T14:02:23.880-05:00Seven Machos said...
"By the way, HD, what is it ...Seven Machos said... <br />"By the way, HD, what is it about Cheney's substantive comments that you disagree with?"<br /><br />I'm not trying to be a smarty here...but frankly if I see a substantive comment I'll let you know.hdhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573004614816464571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41180150924556891512009-05-22T12:08:31.478-05:002009-05-22T12:08:31.478-05:00I think a slow and lingering tortuous death is far...<I>I think a slow and lingering tortuous death is far to good for this....words fail me to describe my contempt for him.</I>.<br /><br />My goodness hdhouse. I had no idea you were a supporter of capital punishment. Frankly I am shocked that an admitted liberal like yourself would favor such a conservative position.<br /><br />I mean you admitted you don't pay your fair share of taxes but this is really something.Hoosier Daddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12872965118921894534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83091098939691576242009-05-21T23:03:50.094-05:002009-05-21T23:03:50.094-05:00never lose sight of the FACT that at the time, all...<I>never lose sight of the FACT that at the time, all this stuff that Cheney cites as crucial to the survival of the Republic is now just a dodge for him to keep from spending his remaining days in the slammer</I>.<br /><br />Oh? Which law? Please be specific.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10330712047609650184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-85926218033188846722009-05-21T22:38:56.744-05:002009-05-21T22:38:56.744-05:00Well then, FLS, it must be a bunch of lies if the ...Well then, FLS, it must be a bunch of lies if the guys at McClatchy say so. Sadly, they won't be around much longer to police Cheney, given their impending liquidation.<br /><br />Sad, isn't it, that such noble saints of truth must rely on mere profit to sustain themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-55012701863206629102009-05-21T22:32:06.682-05:002009-05-21T22:32:06.682-05:00Nice speech, if you enjoy being bullshitted. Catch...Nice speech, if you enjoy being bullshitted. Catch the whole list here:<br /><br /> http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3237981<br /><br /> AFP – Former US Vice President Dick Cheney speaks at the American Enterprise Institute on US national security … <br /><br />By Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers Jonathan S. Landay And Warren P. Strobel, Mcclatchy Newspapers – Thu May 21, 7:10 pm ET<br /><br />WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Dick Cheney's defense Thursday of the Bush administration's policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements.former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34477174684204481282009-05-21T21:16:22.238-05:002009-05-21T21:16:22.238-05:00MadisonMan said...
I think that every time Cheney...<I> MadisonMan said... <br />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>Cheney's speech was vital and necessary because Bush II is unwilling or not competently able to defend his Administration's legacy on National Security. That left Cheney to step up and defend his people as Obama and his people sought to cast the past 8 years as a legacy of torture, evil, criminal law-breaking, "insane wars" and "Muslim persecution" and "shredding of the Sacred Parchment".<br /><br />What Cheney delivered was a speech that will shape the legacy by adding a powerful view that stands against the Obamite's, ACLU, and Moveon.org's slime campaign.<br /><br />It was factual, vs. Obama's "broad brush "Feelings" moment. Where Cheney went into his judgement and opinion, he stated they were derived from facts, facts that will be well known to Americans in coming years.<br /><br />IMO, Cheney's speech was absolutely essential to the Republican Party in staking out their judgment, their policies on national security. It also lays down a marker to some now very nervous Red STate Democrats in particular - plus the Obama Democrats and their hardcore grassroots Leftists and activist Jewish progressive and Gentile post-communist lawyers.<br /><br />"Persist on your course, and you may gravely hurt the security of Americans. And this speech is a marker being laid down. As a warning now, and as an "I told you so" if something happens."<br /><br />Lasting impression "Recklessness (about American's safety) posing as Righteousness".<br />====================<br />FLS - <I>Well, why didn't he tell us all those things four months ago? You know, when he was VP, and he was tight with this guy named Bush? Who was stopping him then?</I>.<br /><br />Because that was before Obama revealed full details of the techniques and limits of the enhanced interrogation program, then joined his AG in hinting at possible criminal prosecution of Bush officials.<br />======================Cedarfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00602418702398818596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62202503925870496952009-05-21T20:56:33.712-05:002009-05-21T20:56:33.712-05:00HD -- You are so absurd that it is laughable. Who ...HD -- You are so absurd that it is laughable. Who is going to prosecute Cheney? Under what law?<br /><br />Please provide specifics. Otherwise, stop with your masturbatory juvenile fantasies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-22885834707164297122009-05-21T20:48:02.325-05:002009-05-21T20:48:02.325-05:00calling all twerps and twerpettes...
this is all ...calling all twerps and twerpettes...<br /><br />this is all about getting back to breaking the law. cheney is covering his butt and trying to win that 19% over to be steadfast followers....it will also be 2 votes on a jury....<br /><br />never lose sight of the FACT that at the time, all this stuff that Cheney cites as crucial to the survival of the Republic is now just a dodge for him to keep from spending his remaining days in the slammer. If you look at it in this context you can understand his motivation....otherwise he is just a barnacle on the body republic and frankly I think a slow and lingering tortuous death is far to good for this....words fail me to describe my contempt for him.<br /><br />I'm watching Romeo and Juliet on PBS as part of the NEA funding of Live at Lincoln Center. It is very hard to juxtapose the barren lawlessness and inhumanity that is Cheney with the art that holds humans together.hdhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573004614816464571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90979618241438283912009-05-21T20:06:08.148-05:002009-05-21T20:06:08.148-05:00Cheney provided three facts, one of which is appar...<I>Cheney provided three facts, one of which is apparently wrong. A whole panopy of successful results -- things we learned, terrorists we stopped, lives we saved, he is regrettably unable to tell us. He blames Obama for "hiding" all those fabulous things</I>.<br /><br />Well then, why won't Obama release the documents and clear this all up? I mean, we know the documents exist, and Cheney filed a FOIA requesst. They were Bush-era documents anyway, so it's not like they reflect badly on Obama, right? Unless (and I know this will be hard for you to consider, so please remain seated) Cheney is the one who's telling the truth and Obama is the one who's lying.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10330712047609650184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-20593935904871494162009-05-21T19:43:43.612-05:002009-05-21T19:43:43.612-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2387387106742693282009-05-21T19:43:42.509-05:002009-05-21T19:43:42.509-05:00Bruce, I was bringing out the self-serving part. "...Bruce, I was bringing out the self-serving part. "Don't blame me for X is as self-serving as they get.former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-14907790077566082772009-05-21T19:41:14.321-05:002009-05-21T19:41:14.321-05:00[Cheney] has provided facts.
Cheney provided thr...<I>[Cheney] has provided facts. <br /><br /></I>Cheney provided three facts, one of which is apparently wrong. A whole panopy of successful results -- things we learned, terrorists we stopped, lives we saved, he is regrettably unable to tell us. He blames Obama for "hiding" all those fabulous things.<br /><br />Well, why didn't he tell us all those things four months ago? You know, when he was VP, and he was tight with this guy named Bush? Who was stopping him then?<br /><br />Did he not know Obama was going to change things, and criticize him, at least by implication?<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned he's waived his right to toot his horn now -- he had plenty of opportunities.former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58193649240027574942009-05-21T19:34:01.309-05:002009-05-21T19:34:01.309-05:00While I understand that Cheney's speech is read as...While I understand that Cheney's speech is read as a response to President Obama's (and noted as so by Professor A) just for the heck of it, I thought I'd point out that Cheney was SCHEDULED to give his speech BEFORE President Obama even announced HE was going to give a speech. (Which he did, after making every one wait 28 minutes for him... Rabbit trail-- ever see that video montage of Senator Obama coming into Senate hearings apologizing about being late? Bizarre. He is either a control freak, or Important People do not have to be on time, or he is someone with a time disorder. Take your pick.)<br /><br /><I>President Obama cleverly planned to pre-empt Cheney's AEI speech, which was announced well in advance, by giving a speech of his own about his anti-terror policies at the same time. Even more cleverly, Cheney decided to wait until the president was done to begin his remarks.</I><BR> <br />Per many people, and even Timothy Noah at Slate.<br />http://www.slate.com/id/2218837/JALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15503869597362866878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-89528343712606844482009-05-21T19:32:05.124-05:002009-05-21T19:32:05.124-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.JALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15503869597362866878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34398360416525671972009-05-21T19:30:29.001-05:002009-05-21T19:30:29.001-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.JALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15503869597362866878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-65826809654168604202009-05-21T19:26:25.074-05:002009-05-21T19:26:25.074-05:00Oooh! I get to be number 201!
Not that I have any...Oooh! I get to be number 201!<br /><br />Not that I have anything to add to what Bruce said. I think he pretty well sums it up.Big Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831645119853118904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62832661861694180912009-05-21T19:22:49.795-05:002009-05-21T19:22:49.795-05:00FLS
The problem with your list of what Cheney sai...FLS<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 "<I>simplification</I>" of what Cheney said is more obfuscation than informative.Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-68556138326882326342009-05-21T19:08:57.749-05:002009-05-21T19:08:57.749-05:00Meh. You see self-serving, I see a man who wants ...Meh. You see self-serving, I see a man who wants what's best for his country.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10330712047609650184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-86943254614794247592009-05-21T18:58:09.433-05:002009-05-21T18:58:09.433-05:00Jeremy,et al: elHombre - "Is anybody stupid enoug...Jeremy,et al: <I>elHombre - "Is anybody stupid enough to believe only 11% of the electorate identifies as independent or third party?"<br /><br />Take it up with Pew Research.<br /><br />Speaking of being unbelievable: Does anybody believe there were really WMD? Chemical wagons? Mountains of anthrax?<br /><br /></I>Non sequitur Jeremy. Odious troll.hombrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12670099074010641958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-80647515114664766232009-05-21T18:33:03.676-05:002009-05-21T18:33:03.676-05:00doesn't know what "self-serving" is
I have summar...<I>doesn't know what "self-serving" is<br /><br /></I>I have summarized the speech so as to point out the self-serving parts.<br /><br />Why I, Cheney, was playing in the national security sandbox:<br /><br /><I>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<br /><br /></I>I'm not gonna let Obama talk smack about our decisions:<br /><br /><I>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.<br /><br /></I>I'll just flip through the paragraphs:<br /><br />People thought we were wrong back then, but we only were trying to *sob* save the country.<br /><br />I didn't see your precious Clinton stop any Islamic terrorists.<br /><br />In fact Clinton made things worse than before -- that pussy.<br /><br />Things were bad -- real real bad.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I had a big fat target painted on my face that day. Luckily I could skedaddle underground right away.<br /><br />We decided to show how tough we were by kicking some Iraqi ass.<br /><br />We also carried out some secret spying that has SAVED YOUR LIVES, but I can't get into any details.<br /><br />Fucking New York Times.<br /><br />Tough interrogations were necessary, I pushed for tough interrogations, I was right, but I can't get into any details.<br /><br />Obama's wrong.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Don't go after the interrogators and the lawyers who said it was OK. <br /><br />Only three guys ever got waterboarded -- the head slicer...<br /><br />Pelosi knew all about it but she didn't raise one peep, so get off my back.<br /><br />Abu Ghraib was totally not authorized. Don't blame us for what those enlisted men did.<br /><br />Don't listen to those whiners who say waterboarding is torture.<br /><br />We had to torture them to SAVE YOUR LIVES. So what? They're a bunch of terrorists anyway.<br /><br />Did I mention that those terrorists have upgraded from box cutters to portable nukes?<br /><br />Obama uses euphemisms<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Torture's as American as apple pie, so Kwitcher belliakin.<br /><br />I was right.<br /><br />I was right.<br /><br />I was right.<br /><br />We KEPT YOU ALIVE.<br /><br />Obama's HIDING all the good stuff that came out of the torture sessions.<br /><br />We saved your lives.<br /><br />Being waterboarded is better than being killed in Iraq, like 4300 of our folks.<br /><br />Terrorists are bad, and don't deserve decent treatment.<br /><br />In conclusion, thank me.former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-56274855842397405252009-05-21T18:28:05.548-05:002009-05-21T18:28:05.548-05:00Jeremy,
You do realize that appealing to popular ...Jeremy,<br /><br />You do realize that appealing to popular opinion is considered to be a logical fallacy, no?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16517956537865658903noreply@blogger.com