Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama v. Cheney

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama v. Cheney

    What a rare event to have the sitting President and a former Vice-President present their ideas in such a striking manner.


    Obama

    Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that - too often - our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us - Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens - fell silent.

    In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach - one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

    Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable - a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass. And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.
    Cheney

    The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe - it's no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

  • #2
    That Obama started 30 minutes late and went on and on in an attempt to talk over Cheney's speech shows us all that Cheney is winninig this one. The more Cheney talks, the more the pendulum swings his way.

    This is particularly self-serving, and shows how, in such a short time, Obama can get so out of touch:

    In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach - one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
    Always remember, it is "fidelity to our values" that is the reason our enemies surrender to us on the battlefield. And I always thought it was our sitdown toilets and indoor plumbing.

    I read recently that Obama's European admirers have told him that they will not take anymore of the detainees until the U.S. does the same.
    Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

    For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

    Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

    Comment


    • #3
      Cheney's comments are reminiscent of Cicero's observation (re-stated by Goldwater in '64, to his detriment) that “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” And yet not even Bush/Cheney carried this to its obvious extreme. Despite the heavy criticisms of their "trampling" of individual rights and liberties, Bush/Cheney could have been even more heavy-handed in their approach. But they chose a path that they felt, in good faith I believe, represented the proper balance between national security and personal liberty. Obama isn't as aggressive as they were, but even he is, I believe, seriously committed to national security. For those critical of Obama (and who thought Bush/Cheney had the better approach), do you think B/C had it just right, or should they have been more, or less, concerned about the constitutional issues, torture, etc.?

      Comment


      • #4
        I still believe most Americans are in the middle. Let the debate rage on about center right or center left, however it is the center. If the far left get too much influence it might take a while, but folks will get sick of them just like they got sick of the far right.

        Think of the number of people that used to listen intently to folks like Limbaugh or Hannity. I have relatives and friends who used to be big time Hannity and Limbaugh listeners, for content. I would say at leat 75% of them don't listen anymore. I listen when I have nothing else to do and find myself saying "that's ridiculous" as often as I agree with them.

        The left will do the same thing to folks in their party.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
          For those critical of Obama (and who thought Bush/Cheney had the better approach), do you think B/C had it just right, or should they have been more, or less, concerned about the constitutional issues, torture, etc.?
          I think they got it just about as right as they could. Reading the released DOJ/CIA memos shows a team trying to be very careful that its actions were within the law (up to interpretation). These were not punitive measures, but as Cheney said today, used to to find out about future operations. Waterboarding was used on only three individuals, and then under very stringent and controlled conditions.

          Who needs a "truth commission" when Cheney is so willing to advocate for what was done?
          Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

          For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

          Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

          Comment


          • #6
            What pisses me off about Cheney's statement is that no matter what happens behind the scenes, if there is ever another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Cheney will publicly interpret that as vindication of his ideas. It becomes a kind of terrorism roulette. 9/11 could have easily happened on Clinton's watch. Dems who try to point at the Rice memo (terrorists prepared to attack in US... or whatever its title) are playing terrorist roulette. Now Cheney is playing terrorist roulette. The odds of some kind of attack happening here in the US during an eight year period (assuming two terms for Obama) is pretty good. Cheney is positioning his legacy to take advantage of such a tragedy. Whether coming from D's or R's, this kind of tactic is despicable.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by myboynoah View Post
              I think they got it just about as right as they could. Reading the released DOJ/CIA memos shows a team trying to be very careful that its actions were within the law (up to interpretation). These were not punitive measures, but as Cheney said today, used to to find out about future operations. Waterboarding was used on only three individuals, and then under very stringent and controlled conditions.

              Who needs a "truth commission" when Cheney is so willing to advocate for what was done?
              What do you make of the evidence that shows that waterboarding was used in an attempt to discover ties between the Taliban and then-defunct Saddam regime? It is easy to figure how such a connection would have served a political purpose, in helping to establish a rationale for the war, but that is far from a ticking time-bomb scenario that the waterboarding supporters cite to support the use of this torture tactic.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
                What pisses me off about Cheney's statement is that no matter what happens behind the scenes, if there is ever another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Cheney will publicly interpret that as vindication of his ideas. It becomes a kind of terrorism roulette. 9/11 could have easily happened on Clinton's watch. Dems who try to point at the Rice memo (terrorists prepared to attack in US... or whatever its title) are playing terrorist roulette. Now Cheney is playing terrorist roulette. The odds of some kind of attack happening here in the US during an eight year period (assuming two terms for Obama) is pretty good. Cheney is positioning his legacy to take advantage of such a tragedy. Whether coming from D's or R's, this kind of tactic is despicable.
                Until the current President of the US caved in to the maniacal desires of the far left nobody cared about Dick Cheney and he would ride off to a retirement off flyfishing the Salt River. That wasn't good enough and the democrats invited him back to the table for a debate that the democrats cannot win. Since Obama got stoopid, not a normal characteristic for the man, he has gotten more and more sucked into the tar baby. He is losing ground on shutting down Gitmo, his party's speaker of the House has declared war on America's intelligence agency and Dick Cheney is fanning the flames that Democrats are weak on national security. Uhhhh good move Mister President.

                I think Cheney is saying what he believes and he is not positioning his legacy to take advantage of a tragedy he gave so much time and energy to stop. Much like I believe Obama is genuinely trying to do what he thinks is best, while stooooopidly placating the liberal psychotic wing of his party, I think the same of Cheney. As long as Obama plays stooooopid why not come back to a seat at the table and pound on the Democrats for being soft on defense. Cheney has nothing to lose, everything to gain and a long history and knowledge of the subject of US national defense. Obama is fighting a fight he is going to lose.

                The Democrats had the win and the high road but caved into the militant lefties. I told you they would lose then and until they figure out how to retreat with honor they will continue to lose. Simply put, they have nothing to gain and the longer Obama tries to convince America, or the lefties in his party he no longer needs, that he is keeping his campaign promises the more stooooopid he looks. Someone tell him to shut up already.

                But I always liked Dick. I would have given 2 months salary to see him and John Edwards in a fistfight.
                Do Your Damnedest In An Ostentatious Manner All The Time!
                -General George S. Patton

                I'm choosing to mostly ignore your fatuity here and instead overwhelm you with so much data that you'll maybe, just maybe, realize that you have reams to read on this subject before you can contribute meaningfully to any conversation on this topic.
                -DOCTOR Wuap

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Goatnapper'96 View Post
                  I think Cheney is saying what he believes and he is not positioning his legacy to take advantage of a tragedy he gave so much time and energy to stop. Much like I believe Obama is genuinely trying to do what he thinks is best, while stooooopidly placating the liberal psychotic wing of his party, I think the same of Cheney. As long as Obama plays stooooopid why not come back to a seat at the table and pound on the Democrats for being soft on defense. Cheney has nothing to lose, everything to gain and a long history and knowledge of the subject of US national defense. Obama is fighting a fight he is going to lose.
                  I like what Jim Geraghty said:
                  Today, Dick Cheney said:
                  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. Today, I’m an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen — a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.

                  Mind you, this is the man who, as vice president, responded to a comment about his policy positions being unpopular with "So?"

                  Dick Cheney isn't running for anything. He doesn't have to worry about approval ratings, or tailor his remarks to a focus group or polling demographics or anything. He essentially has nothing to lose, and this makes him very different from John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Alan Keyes, or any of the tomato cans Obama knocked over in the Democratic Senate primary. Also note that Obama is used to campaigning, but this isn't a campaign; there is no ballot between Obama and Cheney.
                  “There is a great deal of difference in believing something still, and believing it again.”
                  ― W.H. Auden


                  "God made the angels to show His splendour - as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But men and women He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of their minds."
                  -- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons


                  "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
                  --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Goatnapper'96 View Post
                    Until the current President of the US caved in to the maniacal desires of the far left nobody cared about Dick Cheney and he would ride off to a retirement off flyfishing the Salt River. That wasn't good enough and the democrats invited him back to the table for a debate that the democrats cannot win. Since Obama got stoopid, not a normal characteristic for the man, he has gotten more and more sucked into the tar baby. He is losing ground on shutting down Gitmo, his party's speaker of the House has declared war on America's intelligence agency and Dick Cheney is fanning the flames that Democrats are weak on national security. Uhhhh good move Mister President.

                    I think Cheney is saying what he believes and he is not positioning his legacy to take advantage of a tragedy he gave so much time and energy to stop. Much like I believe Obama is genuinely trying to do what he thinks is best, while stooooopidly placating the liberal psychotic wing of his party, I think the same of Cheney. As long as Obama plays stooooopid why not come back to a seat at the table and pound on the Democrats for being soft on defense. Cheney has nothing to lose, everything to gain and a long history and knowledge of the subject of US national defense. Obama is fighting a fight he is going to lose.

                    The Democrats had the win and the high road but caved into the militant lefties. I told you they would lose then and until they figure out how to retreat with honor they will continue to lose. Simply put, they have nothing to gain and the longer Obama tries to convince America, or the lefties in his party he no longer needs, that he is keeping his campaign promises the more stooooopid he looks. Someone tell him to shut up already.

                    But I always liked Dick. I would have given 2 months salary to see him and John Edwards in a fistfight.
                    What did he do to cave into the Left? A lot of the real lefties are seething.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
                      What did he do to cave into the Left? A lot of the real lefties are seething.
                      Off the top of my head, releasing classified interrogation memos and claiming to want to close Gitmo.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
                        For those critical of Obama (and who thought Bush/Cheney had the better approach), do you think B/C had it just right, or should they have been more, or less, concerned about the constitutional issues, torture, etc.?
                        I really do not know what they could have done differently. Viewing the matter legalistically, the captured enemy combatants were not entitled to Geneva Convention protections, and yet the Bush administration gave those to them (or a very close approximation of them -- I am not 100% sure). The Bush people got legal opinions which, as far as I know, are well within the realm of reasonable jurisprudential thought. Only a Kool-Aid drinker can read those opinions as tortured (no pun intended) or result-oriented or dishonest legal reasoning. Excerpt:
                        Section 2340A provides that "[w]hoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life." (9) Section 2340(1) defines "torture" as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control."

                        (Emphasis added.) Looking at the italicized language, it seems to me that torture is a specific intent crime (I am not a white collar lawyer -- mabe UtahDan can help here) so that means the interrogators had to intend to "inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering" by their acts. Acting with advice of counsel and with a well-defined plan to elicit information from key Al Queda people, I think the interrogators have a pretty good argument that they intended to elicit information, not to inflict such pain or suffering. This would be a tough case for prosecutors.

                        Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the "Blind Sheikh" who was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, wrote this:
                        To state the matter plainly, the CIA interrogators did not inflict severe pain and had no intention of doing so. The law of the United States holds that, even where an actor does inflict severe pain, there is still no torture unless it was his objective to do so. It doesn’t matter what the average person might think the “logical” result of the action would be; it matters what specifically was in the mind of the alleged torturer — if his motive was not to torture, it is not torture.

                        Anyone with the time and energy (and the masochistic tendencies) can read the torture memo here. It is no fig leaf.
                        “There is a great deal of difference in believing something still, and believing it again.”
                        ― W.H. Auden


                        "God made the angels to show His splendour - as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But men and women He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of their minds."
                        -- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons


                        "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
                        --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
                          What did he do to cave into the Left? A lot of the real lefties are seething.
                          Well, he released some of the interrogation memos that are classified. And he also said he would close Gitmo.

                          Edit: I see YO beat me to it. Once again, YO wins.
                          "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill


                          "I only know what I hear on the news." - Dear Leader

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by YOhio View Post
                            Off the top of my head, releasing classified interrogation memos and claiming to want to close Gitmo.
                            What is Leftist about either of those things? Leftist politics have to do with pursuing more egalitarian means of distributing wealth and privilege. These views are not particularly Leftist. These issues have to do with competing views on how to protect our national security, but it is isn't the Right vs. the Left. It is Rule of Law people vs. Corner Cutters. Obama is distancing the country from the Corner Cutting mentality because a lot of people think that is a long term recipe for disaster. There are centrists and right-wingers who agree.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
                              What is Leftist about either of those things? Leftist politics have to do with pursuing more egalitarian means of distributing wealth and privilege. These views are not particularly Leftist. These issues have to do with competing views on how to protect our national security, but it is isn't the Right vs. the Left. It is Rule of Law people vs. Corner Cutters. Obama is distancing the country from the Corner Cutting mentality because a lot of people think that is a long term recipe for disaster. There are centrists and right-wingers who agree.
                              You're making a point that really doesn't need to be made. Right and left are near useless as political distinctions, rather they refer to policies espoused by the two major parties.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X