Dueling Debate: Cheney Vs Obama

[amicus]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/21/speech.reaction/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...lvo-debate-obamas-national-security-policies/

Former Vice President Dick Cheney ratcheted up his attacks on the Obama administration Thursday, saying the anti-terror policies of the Bush administration kept America safe and that President Obama's apparent pride in seeking a middle ground is compromising America's safety.

Cheney also defended the enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, that were used on captured terrorists, saying those techniques saved possibly hundreds of thousands of American lives.

~~~

This item is on all the news channels, which you know if you follow such things, but I note that no one has offered commentary thus far.

Amidst the controversy of Pelosi, third in line in Presidential succession, who denies having known of 'enhanced interrogation tactics', even after being briefed and calling the CIA 'liars'; and the Congress, refusing to fund the transferal of Terrorists from Guantanamo detention facilities until a full plan is presented by the Administration, Cheney has weighed in to explain and defend the Bush administrations actions concerning armed combatants.

Curious, eh?

Amicus...

 

[ishtat]

Maybe I am a bit cynical but I cannot rule out the thought that Cheney is worried that he may be called to account for his past conduct. By making a big issue of it now he is setting the stage for labeling any action taken against him as politically motivated.

The other telling point I think is the fact that the Republican leadership is so non- existent that this man still has anyone listening to him. In any society there will always be a need for someone to articulate a rational conservative point of view but the current rump of Republican unelectable God botherers and assorted oddballs ain't it.

Someone needs to work out that it's no point attacking Obama at the present time, he has too much public goodwill behind him. He'll screw up in time, most presidents do but for the present the Republicans should maybe get their own house in order.

I'm not saying that Obama is either right or wrong only that his opponents need to develop a political strategy which goes beyond shooting their mouths at every opportunity, a la Cheney

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Are you speaking of Nancy Pe-lousy?

Ehhhh! She's doomed to be dropped like a hot rock, because she inst just screwing with the CIA, she's fucking with Leon Penetta, Obama's boy at the CIA. This isnt about the CIA, its about thumping Penetta with her purse.

 

[Dragonlipz]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/21/speech.reaction/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...lvo-debate-obamas-national-security-policies/



~~~

This item is on all the news channels, which you know if you follow such things, but I note that no one has offered commentary thus far.

Amidst the controversy of Pelosi, third in line in Presidential succession, who denies having known of 'enhanced interrogation tactics', even after being briefed and calling the CIA 'liars'; and the Congress, refusing to fund the transferal of Terrorists from Guantanamo detention facilities until a full plan is presented by the Administration, Cheney has weighed in to explain and defend the Bush administrations actions concerning armed combatants.

Curious, eh?

Amicus...

Curious only for the intellectually challenged......or those with a lifetime pass to the 'alleged' EIB network or FIXED NEWS....are you most likely are.......
Cheney is covering his ASS for the time when they really investigate him and his company, Halliburton, when they start to 'follow the money'.......
I personally thought that he would beat it to Dubai when Obama assumed power....he still might....to avoid prosecution as the war criminal that he is........

 

[Dragonlipz]

Maybe I am a bit cynical but I cannot rule out the thought that Cheney is worried that he may be called to account for his past conduct. By making a big issue of it now he is setting the stage for labeling any action taken against him as politically motivated.

The other telling point I think is the fact that the Republican leadership is so non- existent that this man still has anyone listening to him. In any society there will always be a need for someone to articulate a rational conservative point of view but the current rump of Republican unelectable God botherers and assorted oddballs ain't it.

Someone needs to work out that it's no point attacking Obama at the present time, he has too much public goodwill behind him. He'll screw up in time, most presidents do but for the present the Republicans should maybe get their own house in order.

I'm not saying that Obama is either right or wrong only that his opponents need to develop a political strategy which goes beyond shooting their mouths at every opportunity, a la Cheney

In contrast to your weenie weasel wording: My money is on Obama.....He is right.....hands down....get a spine.....grow some nuts.....don't just believe in something, stand for it.........We fought fascists in Europe and now we have them here (Cheney and Bush and Rove and Rumsfeld), if we ignore them, they won't go away.......they corrupt and degrade our lives.....

 

[amicus]

I never found anything about Bush to admire or respect, even his facial expressions were apologetic and his body language was passive. I have, however, always appreciated Cheney, his articulate and straight forward, no nonsense approach to issues and his masculine delivery.

"If wishes were horses...", had Cheney been President, I think the nation would have experienced the pride that is deserved for our intervention in the middle east.

That said, Cheney is doing what Bush should have done, defend American actions in both interrogation methods and the success of anti-terrorist activities by the administration. Were the full truth disclosed, as Cheney is requesting, it would underline the efficacy of the efforts to keep the nation safe from attack for so long.

I am biased of course, in opposition to Obama, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that the man is out of his league and appears vacillating and waffling on major policy issues. I suggest a similarity to the Jimmy Carter era is becoming more apparent.

Amicus

 

[Huckleman2000]

The former Vice President is a carbuncle on the ass of American politics. A lying, self-serving sociopath who stoops at nothing in his unshakable faith that he alone is the savior of the nation.

 

[amicus]

Always amusing to note the 'usual suspects' turn to invective when they have no rational thoughts to add.

I realize it will be difficult because the man is pathetic, but will no one rise to the defense of the incumbent President?

Amicus

 

[JackLuis]

In a debate Obama will win hands down. All he has to do is tell the truth and Cheney will collapse in a pool of his own cowardice. Raving about unprovable links to Al-Quida and Yellow Cake.


The Yellowcake Papers were fully examined by Josh Marshall at TPM if you are interested.

 

[amicus]

Youse guys continue to be unreal, clinging to a fantasy, like the 'stolen election', and the absence of WMD's in Iraq.

Your man, the choice of the liberal left wing, is failing in office, his administration is in shambles and I guess your best defense is a weak offense of things past.

Did you also approve of Biden for VP? Obama has him in a cage somewhere, muffled, with a baloney sandwich stuffed in his mouth.

ami

 

[Huckleman2000]

Always amusing to note the 'usual suspects' turn to invective when they have no rational thoughts to add.

I realize it will be difficult because the man is pathetic, but will no one rise to the defense of the incumbent President?

Amicus

There's nothing rational about Cheney's ravings.

As for Obama, he gave a nice speech, but he's trying to invent some ad hoc system of his own to deal with what he called the ad hoc system he inherited. Politically, he can't release some of the detainees; legally, he can't keep them, either. Cheney had no respect for the rule of law; Obama must pick up the pieces left to him, and he's got a difficult task. I suspect circumstances will overtake him at some point, and the wheels of Justice will become unstuck. Obama is trying to keep those issues on a back burner, at least until his major legislative aims are accomplished. At some point, he will need to appoint a Special Prosecutor, but that would ideally be shortly after the mid-terms.

 

[amicus]

There's nothing rational about Cheney's ravings.

As for Obama, he gave a nice speech, but he's trying to invent some ad hoc system of his own to deal with what he called the ad hoc system he inherited. Politically, he can't release some of the detainees; legally, he can't keep them, either. Cheney had no respect for the rule of law; Obama must pick up the pieces left to him, and he's got a difficult task. I suspect circumstances will overtake him at some point, and the wheels of Justice will become unstuck. Obama is trying to keep those issues on a back burner, at least until his major legislative aims are accomplished. At some point, he will need to appoint a Special Prosecutor, but that would ideally be shortly after the mid-terms.

~~~

I shall assume you did not actually hear the speech as even Democrats are agog at his rationality and clarity.

Secondly, the entirety of your last paragraph is political rhetoric and nothing more. Your boy will find out that excessive verbiage and circumlocution is not an acceptable demeanor for a Chief Executive. His awkwardness is embarrassing.

Amicus

 

[Liar]

Actually, as a rhetorics geek, I must say that a head to head Cheney v Obama debate is an interresting thought experiment, from a purely scholary perspective.

On one side, you have a popular president trying to actively work an administration. But he's not sitting as comfortable with politicians as he does with the people. So he can't step on too many toes and he have a bit of a political minefield to maneuver. If he's caught with just the slightest inaccuracy of gaffe, it will cost him dearly.

On the other side you have a guy with about the same approval ratings as swine flu. He can just easily take a fixed position and swing like a mofo, because he has very little to lose. Which is what he's been doing lately.

 

[amicus]

Actually, as a rhetorics geek, I must say that a head to head Cheney v Obama debate is an interresting thought experiment, from a purely scholary perspective.

On one side, you have a popular president trying to actively work an administration. But he's not sitting as comfortable with politicians as he does with the people. So he can't step on too many toes and he have a bit of a political minefield to maneuver. If he's caught with just the slightest inaccuracy of gaffe, it will cost him dearly.

On the other side you have a guy with about the same approval ratings as swine flu. He can just easily take a fixed position and swing like a mofo, because he has very little to lose. Which is what he's been doing lately.

~~~

From a purely scholarly perspective, I would agree, however, with the magic of modern television, both were placed on the same screen during a newscast and the results were disastrous for the incumbent President. (yes, I detest even his name)

I accept your apologetic tone in defending his actions as he is off the campaign trail, but has not apparently realized it.

The Democrats have an absolute majority in Congress, which would lead one to expect a sweep of legislation passed without as much as titular resistance, but that is not the case.

The man is flawed, as is his political philosophy, his background, and his rejection of basic American values to satisfy the extreme left and the labor unions.

I sense a swell of opposition rising all across the land as the electorate begins to realize what they have done.

I regret that you excoriate the former Vice President instead of judging his words and his actions as a rational person should. Not everything depends on a popularity pole; something the left needs to learn.

Amicus

 

[TE999]

America...52% of the citizens who voted, anyway...picked the best of two poor choices this last election. A choice between a charismatic political neophyte and a tired old man who didn't even vote with his party half the time is discouragingly pathetic IMO. I didn't vote for either of them BTW...I have my principles to uphold.

Chaney...whom I also don't entirely agree with...has every right to criticize Obama as does any other citizen in the US...I have not heard Chaney's statements effectively refuted by the White House or anyone else...he's been vilified and mocked, but not refuted.

Unfortunately, his being right or wrong will be proven only by future events here and in the rest of the world. It's woefully premature to judge him now, or Obama either. I just hope another 9-11 doesn't prove Chaney right.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Chaney...whom I also don't entirely agree with...has every right to criticize Obama as does any other citizen in the US...I have not heard Chaney's statements effectively refuted by the White House or anyone else...he's been vilified and mocked, but not refuted.

Unfortunately, his being right or wrong will be proven only by future events here and in the rest of the world. It's woefully premature to judge him now, or Obama either. I just hope another 9-11 doesn't prove Chaney right.

If the last 8 years of obfuscation, selective leaking, misleading verbage, and demonstrable lies haven't been enough for you to question anything the man says, I would think you'd at least have learned to spell his name.

 

[TE999]

If the last 8 years of obfuscation, selective leaking, misleading verbage, and demonstrable lies haven't been enough for you to question anything the man says, I would think you'd at least have learned to spell his name.

Thanks for making my point so effectively.

 

[ishtat]

. So he can't step on too many toes and he have a bit of a political minefield to maneuver. If he's caught with just the slightest inaccuracy of gaffe, it will cost him dearly.

I disagree there Liar. Sooner or later Obama will have to make a choice, the choice will be to how and when take on Congress and especially his own party. Has he got the balls to do it?

Who knows but at some point he is going to have to stamp on the hubris which is affecting the congressional Democratic party 'leadership'. Presidents that let Congress become powerful are always failures and despite all the public good will in his favour Obama seems to be reluctant to wield the big stick yet.

I think this is important because Americans will tolerate all sorts of crooks and misfits in office but they won't cop someone who looks like a wimp.

He has to show he can be a mean bastard and pretty soon.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]I think this is important because Americans will tolerate all sorts of crooks and misfits in office but they won't cop someone who looks like a wimp.

He has to show he can be a mean bastard and pretty soon.

What crap! Why does political power equal the capacity to slap one's balls across someone's nose?

The US has had enough of tough-talking chicken hawks. You look at Cheney and Obama, and conclude that Obama is the wimp? What a warped view of virility, that such a pathetic man who wields no power signifies the Big Dick of the Republican party.

 

[amicus]

America...52% of the citizens who voted, anyway...picked the best of two poor choices this last election. A choice between a charismatic political neophyte and a tired old man who didn't even vote with his party half the time is discouragingly pathetic IMO. I didn't vote for either of them BTW...I have my principles to uphold.

Chaney...whom I also don't entirely agree with...has every right to criticize Obama as does any other citizen in the US...I have not heard Chaney's statements effectively refuted by the White House or anyone else...he's been vilified and mocked, but not refuted.

Unfortunately, his being right or wrong will be proven only by future events here and in the rest of the world. It's woefully premature to judge him now, or Obama either. I just hope another 9-11 doesn't prove Chaney right.

~~~

Accurate assessment TE, I would have preferred Thompson or even Gingrich to have run, but, perhaps the country needs a dose of the left to rediscover its' roots?

I am researching a new book with your last sentence as the subject, as this administration guts the intelligence community and demoralizes the military, as they are doing at the present time.

I didn't realize just how many, 'intelligence agencies' the US has until I began making a list; it is up near twenty at the current time and those are just the ones available to a public search.

Good post...thank you.

Amicus

 

[TE999]

~~~

Accurate assessment TE, I would have preferred Thompson or even Gingrich to have run, but, perhaps the country needs a dose of the left to rediscover its' roots?

I am researching a new book with your last sentence as the subject, as this administration guts the intelligence community and demoralizes the military, as they are doing at the present time.

I didn't realize just how many, 'intelligence agencies' the US has until I began making a list; it is up near twenty at the current time and those are just the ones available to a public search.

Good post...thank you.

Amicus

You're welcome. I'm just trying to interject some rational assessments of the current situation the country finds itself in.

 

[Dragonlipz]

I never found anything about Bush to admire or respect, even his facial expressions were apologetic and his body language was passive. I have, however, always appreciated Cheney, his articulate and straight forward, no nonsense approach to issues and his masculine delivery.

"If wishes were horses...", had Cheney been President, I think the nation would have experienced the pride that is deserved for our intervention in the middle east.

That said, Cheney is doing what Bush should have done, defend American actions in both interrogation methods and the success of anti-terrorist activities by the administration. Were the full truth disclosed, as Cheney is requesting, it would underline the efficacy of the efforts to keep the nation safe from attack for so long.

I am biased of course, in opposition to Obama, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that the man is out of his league and appears vacillating and waffling on major policy issues. I suggest a similarity to the Jimmy Carter era is becoming more apparent.

Amicus

What a load of excrement!!! Put some lipstick on a Cheney, it's still a Cheney.....While yer getting all gushy over the punkassbitch - remember - he never served a minute in the armed forces.....had five, count 'em, five, deferments........
A man who wouldn't serve that you would serve...
That says more about you than it does him...............Chew on that shit, bitch
Cuz you ain't shit......

 

[Dragonlipz]

You're welcome. I'm just trying to interject some rational assessments of the current situation the country finds itself in.

Thompson or Gingrich......intellectual and moral giants that we all can look up to.....oh wait!
Just you and your sadass, tired, outdated moral compass find something admireable and worthy from those two and that only means something to a caveman or cavewoman or a Taliban because you are the equivalent of our sadass muslim brothers......You and Dickhead Cheney......moral and patriotic signposts.....

 

[JackLuis]

Thompson or Gingrich......intellectual and moral giants that we all can look up to.....oh wait!
Just you and your sadass, tired, outdated moral compass find something admireable and worthy from those two and that only means something to a caveman or cavewoman or a Taliban because you are the equivalent of our sadass muslim brothers......You and Dickhead Cheney......moral and patriotic signposts.....

Don't hold back on my account. LOL!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Cheney is like me. He has absolutely nuthin to gain from being nice to Obama. He's Darth Vader. And he's the arch-villain of the Usual Suspect Universe.

Someone explain to me why it is that all Democrat women look like Drew Carey, and the Democrat men look like Mimi.