Cheney still defending previous administration

[fishbob]

Story (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMy6C2AiBsrQQ-jwPliaZANmi7kQD98AO1T00)

In a speech challenging President Barack Obama's policies, Cheney said the national security decisions made by former President George W. Bush kept America safe and were rooted in a determination to ensure the Sept. 11 attacks didn't become "a prelude to something worse."

. . . . . .

Cheney: we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative,"



The dried up old has-been has finally come up with a memorable quote. Unfortunately for him, I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

[Skeptic]

That might have to do with the fact that, as Carl Rove noted correctly, the Obama administration is now (thank God) for the most part following the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policy, although they're trying to make as much political hay as possible of minor differences.

[fishbob]

That might have to do with the fact that, as Carl Rove noted correctly, the Obama administration is now (thank God) for the most part following the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policy, although they're trying to make as much political hay as possible of minor differences.

Given his track record, anything noted by Carl Rove is guaranteed to not be 'noted correctly'.

[Brainster]

At this point, I almost expect Cheney to be defending the current administration. And in fact he is (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/text_of_cheneys_aei_speech.asp):

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support.

Cheney might also mention favorably Obama's discussion of preventative detention and his willingness to use the military commissions.

[Normal Dude]

What is Cheney still doing here? Hasn't he returned to his home planet yet? Maybe he left a robot in his place...

[Bill Thompson]

At first when I heard Cheney attacking Obama and Obama's decisions I thought what a nut and mean guy Cheney is. How horribly disrespectful and uncalled for it is for a former Vice President to do this to a sitting President.

But, then, after a few minutes of thinking about it I have come to see the genius in it. Yes, Cheney is a freaking genius. He is so brilliant that we are dwarfed by it.

Do you see why he is doing this? It is freaking amazing!

Nothing -- I mean nothing at all -- protects and defends the lives of Americans and American servicemen than Cheney going public and criticizing Obama's policies and practices as been careless and dangerous to the United States. It is perfect. It is simple just like many great ideas. Al Qaeda and our enemies might simply hesitate in attacking us again like another 9-11 because it would serve to prove Cheney and Bush right. Cheney, as it turns out, really does love the USA and want to protect us.

[corplinx]

What is Cheney still doing here?

Cheney is done politically. He has nothing to lose. He can go on stage and use unfair misleading rhetoric. He isn't running for anything. Meanwhile, the Obama administration cedes ground to Cheney's positions.

I don't know what he is doing here, but it appears to be working.

[ImaginalDisc]

Cheney is done politically. He has nothing to lose. He can go on stage and use unfair misleading rhetoric. He isn't running for anything. Meanwhile, the Obama administration cedes ground to Cheney's positions.

I don't know what he is doing here, but it appears to be working.

To be fair, in the sunken city that Cheney's home, all slopes are slippery.

[kallsop]

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

I suppose the proven success of waterboarding could be driving up the favorable numbers.

[applecorped]

Shouldn't this thread be called "Cheney still defending his administration".

Why wouldn't he? Wouldn't you if you thought you were right?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I only wish Cheney had to defend his administration in one or another court trial.

[BPSCG]

Not sure what Cheney's arguing against, since it would appear that Obama has largely adopted ChimpBusHitler's national security strategy:

Victor Davis Hanson (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmI2OTdlNGRhZTFmY2E4ZGM1N2UzZGQ5NjM2MWRlMDE=)
...there is no longer a Bush-did-it argument. The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq, Afghanistan — and now Guantánamo — are officially no longer part of the demonic Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld nexus, but apparently collective legitimate anti-terrorism measures designed to thwart killers, and by agreement, after years of observance, of great utility in keeping us safe the last eight years.

Jack Goldsmith (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1e733cac-c273-48e5-9140-80443ed1f5e2&p=1):The new administration has copied most of the Bush program, has expanded some of it, and has narrowed only a bit. Almost all of the Obama changes have been at the level of packaging, argumentation, symbol, and rhetoric.

[INRM]

AppleCorpEd,

Of course Cheney thinks he's right. He has no conscience, so torture, extraordinary rendition, waging war on false pretenses to get oil or spread our sphere of influence, and using blatant fear-mongering to terrorize us all into passivity are all acceptable to him, in fact in his mind, anything is justified as long as it works to his benefit.

Cheney will never experience remorse for what he did as he is simply incapable of feeling it. The only time he may ever feel remorse would be if he was held accountable for what he did, and it wouldn't be remorse for what he did, it would be remorse for being punished.


BPSCG,

That's a very good point, the new administration pretty much is following the Bush/Cheney playbook, and with his recently talking about preventative, indefinite detention for people who "pose a national security threat", has actually taken it a step further.

Obama was simply more clever in promising us change, being more charming and charismatic, and doing a few good acts such as releasing some memos from the past administration, and telling us he's going to shut Gitmo down to get us all to feel hope and trust in him before doing all the same crap that Bush/Cheney did (and with the preventative detention policy is taking it a step further).


INRM

[Denver]

Whenever I hear Cheney speaking now, it just feels like the whitehouse is haunted. Or a Scrooge-like story arc is unfolding, with Cheney in the role of the morbid spirit. It makes me wonder who will drop in as the other roles.

[BPSCG]

Cheney will never experience remorse for what he did as he is simply incapable of feeling it, since he did what he had to do to keep the country safe. Fixed.

[corplinx]

Cheney will never experience remorse for what he did as he is simply incapable of feeling it. KSM really had it coming.

Fixed.

[Tricky]

What is Cheney still doing here? Hasn't he returned to his home planet yet? Maybe he left a robot in his place...
[Obiwan voice]"He's mostly machine now..."[/Obiwan voice]

[applecorped]

He has no conscience, ...

Cheney will never experience remorse for what he did as he is simply incapable of feeling it.





Statements like these do not serve your position well.

[applecorped]

[Obiwan voice]"He's mostly machine now..."[/Obiwan voice]

Like a Terminator? (actually after I typed that I thought of Robbie the Robot from Lost in Space flailing his arms and shouting "Warning, Warning!"):p

[Darth Rotor]

Cheney still believes that the courses of action the Bush administration took were right. (Whether they were or not you can debate elsewhere.) That sorta makes sense, as he was deeply involved in the decision making. I'd be stunned if he did a flip flop and spoke out in criticism of what he was involved in doing.

Corplinx is right: he's done, so he has nothing to lose by speaking out. Given his laconic history, though, I am a bit surprised he's sounding off like this.

DR

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I only wish Cheney had to defend his administration in one or another court trial.

I agree. Cheney is a vile individual. A crypto-neocon if ever there was one!!

[Slayhamlet]

I agree. Cheney is a vile individual. A crypto-neocon if ever there was one!!

Now you're just spouting political buzzwords without any understanding of their meaning. How in the world is Dick Cheney a crypto-neocon?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Now you're just spouting political buzzwords without any understanding of their meaning.

Being patronizing is a discrediting feature.

How in the world is Dick Cheney a crypto-neocon?

If you knew anything about Cheney you'd understand perfectly. I'm not here to educate the naive. Go away and learn about him.

[Slayhamlet]

Being patronizing is a discrediting feature.

Being an sub-literate moron is a far worse one.

If you knew anything about Cheney you'd understand perfectly. I'm not here to educate the naive. Go away and learn about him.

Nope. Explain how Cheney is a crypto-Neocon or admit you hadn't the slightest clue what the prefix "crypto-" meant when you used it. Your refusal to answer is indicative of your petulance and dishonesty.

[fishbob]

Shouldn't this thread be called "Cheney still defending his administration".

Why wouldn't he? Wouldn't you if you thought you were right?

Maybe, maybe not:

Who is this Dick Cheeny anyway? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/who-is-this-dick-cheeny-g_b_206560.html)

[fishbob]

Cheney will never experience remorse for what he did as he is simply incapable of feeling it because the emotion would cause his cholesterol saturated cardiac venom pump to spring a new leak and kill him dead on the spot.


Fixed it for you.

[Bikewer]

I notice that Cheney couldn't give up the "they hate us because of our freedoms" rhetoric that was discredited early on in the administration.

[BPSCG]

A crypto-neocon People tell me I'm pretty well-educated. But I have no idea what this term means. Could you tell me, please?

Thanks!

[MattusMaximus]

Cheney is a real Dick ;)

[Texas]

I notice that Cheney couldn't give up the "they hate us because of our freedoms" rhetoric that was discredited early on in the administration.What did they hate us for?

[Bikewer]

Shortly after our start of hostilities in Afghanistan, Michael Sheuer, the chief CIA analyst in charge of the "Bin Laden Project" wrote a book taking the Bush administration to task for this assertion.
He pointed out that Al Qaeda didn't give a fig about our "freedoms" or lifestyle or any other such thing; they hated us because of our foreign policy.

Specifically, such things as our support for Israel, our support of anti-Islamic (in Bin Laden's view) dictatorships such as Saudi, Egypt, and Kuwait, the presence of Western troops on Islamic lands, etc, etc.
Bin Laden justified attacks on civilians by reason of the fact that we were a democracy; the people had elected the leaders responsible for these things.

[BPSCG]

I agree. Cheney is a vile individual. A crypto-neocon if ever there was one!!

People tell me I'm pretty well-educated. But I have no idea what this term means. Could you tell me, please?

Thanks!Bump for an answer from TFT.

[MG1962]

Shortly after our start of hostilities in Afghanistan, Michael Sheuer, the chief CIA analyst in charge of the "Bin Laden Project" wrote a book taking the Bush administration to task for this assertion.
He pointed out that Al Qaeda didn't give a fig about our "freedoms" or lifestyle or any other such thing; they hated us because of our foreign policy.

Specifically, such things as our support for Israel, our support of anti-Islamic (in Bin Laden's view) dictatorships such as Saudi, Egypt, and Kuwait, the presence of Western troops on Islamic lands, etc, etc.
Bin Laden justified attacks on civilians by reason of the fact that we were a democracy; the people had elected the leaders responsible for these things.

I think Micheal Sheuer is perhaps closer to the truth than Cheney.

That aside I am finding Cheney's behaviour to odious to say the least. He chose not to stand for public office. The incomming adminstration campaigned on the basis of change, and looking for new directions to solve issues affecting the US

Cheney's approach really does feel as though it is bordering of dictatorial. By constant critisim of the Obama admin, is Cheney really saying he disgrees with the decision made by the American people.

Cheney should take a leaf from George Bushs book. Retire form public life, keep your dignity and enjoy a well earned rest after 8 very difficult years in American histoy

[Ziggurat]

Cheney's approach really does feel as though it is bordering of dictatorial. By constant critisim of the Obama admin, is Cheney really saying he disgrees with the decision made by the American people.

Don't be absurd. Were the democrats being dictatorial by criticizing Bush? No, of course not. They were, and Cheney is, engaged in one of the most fundamental processes in any democracy: the open debate of ideas. If you want to argue that what Cheney is saying is wrong, go ahead and join in that debate by saying so. But really, the accusation that a man with no position in government is being in the least bit dictatorial by voicing his opinion is itself far more undemocratic than anything Cheney is saying.

[The Painter]

is Chaney really saying he disgrees with the decision made by the American people.

Well if he won't say it, I will

"I disagree with the decision of the American people" The Painter.

There I said it..

Now I will ask you a question. Did you disagree with the American people when Bush was elected? I seem to recall a lot of discussion about how stupid the American voters were for voting Bush into office. I even recall discussions about an intelligence test to be able to vote.

Cheney says Obama sucks and it is now unAmerican. You have now joined the dark side.

[MG1962]

Don't be absurd. Were the democrats being dictatorial by criticizing Bush? No, of course not. They were, and Cheney is, engaged in one of the most fundamental processes in any democracy: the open debate of ideas. If you want to argue that what Cheney is saying is wrong, go ahead and join in that debate by saying so. But really, the accusation that a man with no position in government is being in the least bit dictatorial by voicing his opinion is itself far more undemocratic than anything Cheney is saying.

Please dont twist my words - I have no issue with Republicans giving it to the Democrats or visa versa- I do have an issue with an outgoing VP of any party laying into a new administration repeatedly within the first hundred days.

Part of every new adminstration - no matter the party, is cleaning up the mess and unfinished buisness of the previous adminstration. The nation does not reboot every 4 years in Jan

[Brainster]

Shortly after our start of hostilities in Afghanistan, Michael Sheuer, the chief CIA analyst in charge of the "Bin Laden Project" wrote a book taking the Bush administration to task for this assertion.
He pointed out that Al Qaeda didn't give a fig about our "freedoms" or lifestyle or any other such thing; they hated us because of our foreign policy.

Michael "I don't consider Osama bin Laden a terrorist. I consider him to be a resistance fighter," Sheuer? Michael "The truth of the matter is that it is all of the Democrats and the Republicans, except perhaps for Mr. Paul and Mr. Kucinich, who are marching to Osama Bin Laden's drum," Sheuer? Michael "The war in Iraq is the responsibility of the American fifth column that supports Israel," Sheuer?

This guy's got a bigger axe to grind than Paul Bunyan.

[Ziggurat]

Please dont twist my words - I have no issue with Republicans giving it to the Democrats or visa versa- I do have an issue with an outgoing VP of any party laying into a new administration repeatedly within the first hundred days.

Yet the argument you gave for why you found it objectionable was absurd, and I brought up democrats to demonstrate why it was absurd. I don't see that as having changed at all even with your current statement.

[Ziggurat]

Michael "I don't consider Osama bin Laden a terrorist. I consider him to be a resistance fighter," Sheuer? Michael "The truth of the matter is that it is all of the Democrats and the Republicans, except perhaps for Mr. Paul and Mr. Kucinich, who are marching to Osama Bin Laden's drum," Sheuer? Michael "The war in Iraq is the responsibility of the American fifth column that supports Israel," Sheuer?

This guy's got a bigger axe to grind than Paul Bunyan.

I knew Scheuer had a weird anti-Israel fetish, but I wasn't aware that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were his favorite pols. I guess it's not too surprising, though, the nutters seem to attract each other.

[MG1962]

Yet the argument you gave for why you found it objectionable was absurd, and I brought up democrats to demonstrate why it was absurd. I don't see that as having changed at all even with your current statement.

Because I only explicitly mentioned Cheney, you widened the scope of the comment so that it suited your arguement.

[Ziggurat]

Because I only explicitly mentioned Cheney, you widened the scope of the comment so that it suited your arguement.

I applied the argument you gave to another test case, and found that the results were absurd. That you did not intend it to be applied elsewhere is irrelevant: nothing about the argument as you presented it makes it inapplicable to democrats, or to me and you for that matter. If you don't like its results when the scope is widened, perhaps that should be a clue that the argument was problematic (to put it kindly) to begin with.

[MG1962]

I applied the argument you gave to another test case, and found that the results were absurd. That you did not intend it to be applied elsewhere is irrelevant: nothing about the argument as you presented it makes it inapplicable to democrats, or to me and you for that matter. If you don't like its results when the scope is widened, perhaps that should be a clue that the argument was problematic (to put it kindly) to begin with.

If my arguement is problamatic, then you should have no trouble showing previous examples of outgoing VPs attacking incomming adminstrations so early in their terms

[Tricky]

People tell me I'm pretty well-educated. But I have no idea what this term means. Could you tell me, please?
My understanding of an American neocon is that internationally, they believe in using America's military and economic strength to impose their policies upon the world. Domestically, they are primarily concerned with issues like defense and "law and order" and have less concern for fiscal conservatism than their conservative predecessors.

As such, Cheney fits well into the description of a neocon. "Crypto", of course, means "hidden", though it is often used incorrectly as a synonym for "evil". It is silly to apply "crypto" to Cheney's position. Whatever your views of him, it has to be said that he is up-front with his policies. Nothing "hidden" at all, except a few memos and e-mails here and there.

[Ziggurat]

If my arguement is problamatic, then you should have no trouble showing previous examples of outgoing VPs attacking incomming adminstrations so early in their terms

Your claim was that Cheney was acting in an almost dictatorial manner, not simply an unusual or unprecedented manner. These are not equivalent claims, and you cannot simply substitute one for the other. Really, you'll have to do better than this.

[tomwaits]

My understanding of an American neocon is that internationally, they believe in using America's military and economic strength to impose their policies upon the world. Domestically, they are primarily concerned with issues like defense and "law and order" and have less concern for fiscal conservatism than their conservative predecessors.

As such, Cheney fits well into the description of a neocon. "Crypto", of course, means "hidden", though it is often used incorrectly as a synonym for "evil". It is silly to apply "crypto" to Cheney's position. Whatever your views of him, it has to be said that he is up-front with his policies. Nothing "hidden" at all, except a few memos and e-mails here and there.


Indeed. Seems to me that Cheney is the quintessential image of a neocon. It's the complete opposite of "crypto".

[Trojan_Jockey]

Indeed. Seems to me that Cheney is the quintessential image of a neocon. It's the complete opposite of "crypto".

Yeah, but 'crypto' sounds more sinister and evil and also makes TFT sound like he knows loads about politics and is dead street smart and clever and stuff. Right kids?

[Marc39]

What is Cheney still doing here? Hasn't he returned to his home planet yet? Maybe he left a robot in his place...

Perhaps, he's a bit miffed the Obama administration does not fully realize they won the election and continue to criticize the Bush administration for, in effect, putting policies in place that prevented further terrorist attacks and kept Americans safe.

[Tricky]

Don't be absurd. Were the democrats being dictatorial by criticizing Bush? No, of course not. They were, and Cheney is, engaged in one of the most fundamental processes in any democracy: the open debate of ideas. If you want to argue that what Cheney is saying is wrong, go ahead and join in that debate by saying so. But really, the accusation that a man with no position in government is being in the least bit dictatorial by voicing his opinion is itself far more undemocratic than anything Cheney is saying.
I agree with this 100%. The greatest sadness for me after 9-11 was that it somehow became disloyal to criticize the president. Musicians were removed from the airwaves because of it. It was one of the darkest times in America that I can remember. I am absolutely opposed to repeating it just because there is a president in office that I like better. Cheney has as much right to criticize the country he loves as I do. If by some miracle he makes some good points along the way, then hooray for the country.

Frankly, the funniest thing is to see Cheney trying to keep up the same level of vituperation, even though Obama is moving more and more to the right in some of his policies. He keeps trying, but he seems to be aware of how silly he's looking. I'd say his heart isn't in it, but we all know he has a robot heart.:D

[Marc39]

Frankly, the funniest thing is to see Cheney trying to keep up the same level of vituperation, even though Obama is moving more and more to the right in some of his policies. He keeps trying, but he seems to be aware of how silly he's looking. I'd say his heart isn't in it, but we all know he has a robot heart.:D

Increasing numbers of Americans would disagree about Cheney looking silly...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22838.html

[Tricky]

Increasing numbers of Americans would disagree about Cheney looking silly...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22838.html
Well that's a valid point. There may be a number of explanations for his 8% rise to... ah... 37% approval. It could be that he is simply energizing the Republican base. Or, even more likely, it is simply that he is no longer in office. From the link you cited:
“Is Cheney’s uptick due to his visibility as one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration? Almost certainly not,” Holland told CNN. “Former President George W. Bush’s favorable rating rose 6 points in that same time period, and Bush has not given a single public speech since he left office.”

[corplinx]

I agree with this 100%. The greatest sadness for me after 9-11 was that it somehow became disloyal to criticize the president. Musicians were removed from the airwaves because of it. It was one of the darkest times in America that I can remember.

The Dixie Chicks being removed from rotation on hillbilly radio stations was not a dark time in our history. Stop being a drama queen.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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

I suppose the proven success of waterboarding could be driving up the favorable numbers.

That or people like him more now that he's powerless (and defensless, perhaps? hmmmmm....).

[Marc39]

Well that's a valid point. There may be a number of explanations for his 8% rise to... ah... 37% approval. It could be that he is simply energizing the Republican base. Or, even more likely, it is simply that he is no longer in office. From the link you cited:

CNN is highly partisan, so, I would take with a grain of salt their spin on the rise in Cheney's popularity. Bottom line, Cheney's sudden loquacity is proving effective, such as causing Congress to back down on closing Gitmo.

[Tricky]

The Dixie Chicks being removed from rotation on hillbilly radio stations was not a dark time in our history. Stop being a drama queen.

They weren't the only ones who had their works censored by scared people. Bruce Springsteen and Tim Robbins also suffered backlash for their criticisms. It wasn't exactly Joe McCarthy again, but it was dark nonetheless.

But my whole point is that it is wrong to try to censor criticism of the government. I don't want Dick Cheney to shut up. Neither, I confess, do I want his views to become widespread. We've been there.

[tomwaits]

Bruce Springsteen suffered backlash...

Maybe it's because his music sucks?

[Tricky]

Maybe it's because his music sucks?
LOL. If that were the case, the backlash should have occurred thirty years ago.:D

[MG1962]

Your claim was that Cheney was acting in an almost dictatorial manner, not simply an unusual or unprecedented manner. These are not equivalent claims, and you cannot simply substitute one for the other. Really, you'll have to do better than this.

Na I dont think so - your argument is as irrelevant as Cheney's critisim. Its not warrented, not needed, and if anything it is doing more damage to a rebuilding Republican Party than to President Obama

Seriously we are talking about someone who didn't have the gumption to seek nomination for the Republican party. I wonder why that was? Maybe because even his own party saw him as the irrelevant liabilty he is

[Ziggurat]

Na I dont think so - your argument is as irrelevant as Cheney's critisim. Its not warrented, not needed, and if anything it is doing more damage to a rebuilding Republican Party than to President Obama

And yet, none of this supports your original claim that Cheney's statements bordered on being dictatorial. It seems you have abandoned that claim, but without the honesty to admit that you have done so.

Seriously we are talking about someone who didn't have the gumption to seek nomination for the Republican party. I wonder why that was? Maybe because even his own party saw him as the irrelevant liabilty he is

Are you familiar with the term "ad hominem"?

[Ziggurat]

That or people like him more now that he's powerless (and defensless, perhaps? hmmmmm....).

Never call a man who can shoot a lawyer in the face and walk off scot free "defenseless". :eek:

[corplinx]

They weren't the only ones who had their works censored by scared people. Bruce Springsteen and Tim Robbins also suffered backlash for their criticisms. It wasn't exactly Joe McCarthy again, but it was dark nonetheless.


It was so dark the the Dixie Chicks picked up an entire new audience. Tim Robbins was so blacklisted that every news network carried his "chill wind" speech. Everyone was afraid to criticize the president, that is why I guess Alan Colmes took time off from being "the quiet one" to go on just about every Fox show and warn about an executive branch power grab in progress right away after 911 when he saw Patriot.

The media was so scared, they ran negative stories about us dropping food in mine fields in Afghanistan in week one. By week 2 they had declared it a failure.

Believe it or not, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are not the entire news media. Your dark age is more of a personal perception than reality. However, there were no blacklists. There were some backlashes against some dumb things. It was hardly a dark time.

The darkest time I can remember in my lifetime was the morning of September 11 2001.

[Marc39]

If my arguement is problamatic, then you should have no trouble showing previous examples of outgoing VPs attacking incomming adminstrations so early in their terms

Show previous examples of incoming presidents who were still in campaign mode and criticizing their predecessors 100 days into their adminstration.

[fishbob]

As such, Cheney fits well into the description of a neocon. "Crypto", of course, means "hidden", though it is often used incorrectly as a synonym for "evil". It is silly to apply "crypto" to Cheney's position. Whatever your views of him, it has to be said that he is up-front with his policies. Nothing "hidden" at all, except a few memos and e-mails here and there.

And his energy policy advisors.

But seriously - why would anybody bother to listen to that has-been ??

[BPSCG]

...Gore then explained how he planned to travel to Iowa in September 2001 to deliver "a real ripsnorter of a speech" that would have harshly critiqued President Bush's first nine months in office and broken Gore's political silence. He abandoned his plan after the Sept. 11 attacks, he said, and instead swallowed his pride and told the Iowa Democrats of the man he clearly feels stole the presidency from him, "George W. Bush is my commander-in-chief."

"I think there were millions just like me, who genuinely, in spite of whatever partisanship they may have felt prior to that time, genuinely felt like they wanted George W. Bush to lead all of us in America wisely and well," he shouted.

"And the reason I'm recalling those feelings now is because those are the feelings that were betrayed by this president! He betrayed this country! He played on our fears! He took America, he took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure that was preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!" Gore closed with his father's line from 1970: "And so I say to you in closing my friends, in the year of 2004, the truth shall rise again!"

The crowded erupted in a frenzy... Link

So the only thing that kept Gore from ripping into Bush just a few months into his presidency was September 11.

I agree with this 100%. The greatest sadness for me after 9-11 was that it somehow became disloyal to criticize the president. Musicians were removed from the airwaves because of it. It was one of the darkest times in America that I can remember.

If I owned a hardware store and put a sign in the window reading, "Down with Bush" — I'd lose business. Or, if I put one in the window saying "Down with Saddam!" I'd also lose business. This is because other people have the right to associate themselves with ideas just as much as movie stars have the right to express their "ideas." Only by the logic of the bitchy little world we call Hollywood, where even men are divas, would we say it's outrageous that store owners are having their "right" to sell three-penny nails revoked. Also, it would seem, by the logic of the bitchy little world of the JREF Politics forum.

[MG1962]

And yet, none of this supports your original claim that Cheney's statements bordered on being dictatorial. It seems you have abandoned that claim, but without the honesty to admit that you have done so.

So how how else do you charaterise the quote below - this was a statement made less than 2 weeks after Obama was sworn into office

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said.

Then later in the same interview

instead of sitting down and carefully evaluating the policies,” Obama officials are unwisely following “campaign rhetoric” and preparing to release terrorism suspects or afford them legal protections granted to more conventional defendants in crime cases.



are you familiar with the term "ad hominem"?

Sorry no it is not - Dick Cheney is the first VP in a 100 years not to even try to go from VP to President. Why is that do you think?

[MG1962]

Show previous examples of incoming presidents who were still in campaign mode and criticizing their predecessors 100 days into their adminstration.

I would be genuinely stunned to hear of an incomming administration that didn't critise their predecessors. It is almost politics 101 - blame the last guy for as much as possible for as long as possible. Regardless if it was his fault or not

[Bikewer]

Michael "I don't consider Osama bin Laden a terrorist. I consider him to be a resistance fighter," Sheuer? Michael "The truth of the matter is that it is all of the Democrats and the Republicans, except perhaps for Mr. Paul and Mr. Kucinich, who are marching to Osama Bin Laden's drum," Sheuer? Michael "The war in Iraq is the responsibility of the American fifth column that supports Israel," Sheuer?

This guy's got a bigger axe to grind than Paul Bunyan.

Gee, Brainster, I read the man's book, and didn't get that impression at all. Maybe he's come around to such a position.... Imperial Hubris took the Bush administration to task on several fronts; not only the "hate us for our freedoms" rhetoric, but the virtual abandonment of the mission in Afghanistan in favor of the ill-considered invasion of Iraq.
He stated very clearly that Bin Laden needed to be hunted down and killed.

He did state that he thought that Bin Laden was to some extent a man of honor, in that he clearly stated his position and goals and stuck to them.
At the same time characterizing these goals and positions to be those of a lunatic....

[Marc39]

I would be genuinely stunned to hear of an incomming administration that didn't critise their predecessors. It is almost politics 101 - blame the last guy for as much as possible for as long as possible. Regardless if it was his fault or not

Not 100 days into an administration.

[Ziggurat]

So how how else do you charaterise the quote below - this was a statement made less than 2 weeks after Obama was sworn into office

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said.

Source? Without context, how do I know that he's referring to anyone in the Obama administration, and not just, say, some activists? Bad form there.

As to how I would characterize it, well, I'd characterize it as highly opinionated. Depending on who he's talking about (again, you provided no way of establishing a context), it might also be a strawman (rather a common event in political speech). But bordering on dictatorial? That's just silly.

instead of sitting down and carefully evaluating the policies,” Obama officials are unwisely following “campaign rhetoric” and preparing to release terrorism suspects or afford them legal protections granted to more conventional defendants in crime cases.

I would characterize this as harsh criticism. Whether or not it's warranted, how does it constitute borderline dictatorial behavior? You have yet to present any logical connection.

[quote]Sorry no it is not - Dick Cheney is the first VP in a 100 years not to even try to go from VP to President. Why is that do you think?

Yes, it was an ad hominem attack against Cheney. It was an accusation against him as a person which has no bearing on the content of his speach. It was the very definition of an ad hominem attack. And once again, whether or not his actions have precedent is a separate issue from whether or not they are borderline dictatorial. Your repeated attempts to move the goalpost will not suffice to defend your original claim.

[MG1962]

Source? Without context, how do I know that he's referring to anyone in the Obama administration, and not just, say, some activists? Bad form there.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18390.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18390.html)

You can check the context of the statements with the accompanying video in the top left hand corner



Yes, it was an ad hominem attack against Cheney. It was an accusation against him as a person which has no bearing on the content of his speach. It was the very definition of an ad hominem attack. And once again, whether or not his actions have precedent is a separate issue from whether or not they are borderline dictatorial. Your repeated attempts to move the goalpost will not suffice to defend your original claim.

No sorry - nothing in politics occures in a vacuum. And the preceedent is very well noting. It shows that Cheney and his ideas are as irrelevant to his own party as they were the electorate in general

The comments from that speech are from less than two weeks after Obama took office and 3 months almost to the day Obama won office. At that point Obama had not released any new policy he had not previously signaled in the election campaign. Therefore Obama has a strong mandate from the people on the course of action the American people wished the US government to undertake.

Cheney is critising that course of action, hence the choice endorsed by the American people. Whether he likes it or not, till that course of action begins to fail or not live up to expectation, or Obama makes policy that was not part of the election campaign, he does not have a leg to stand on.

[Ziggurat]

And the preceedent is very well noting. It shows that Cheney and his ideas are as irrelevant to his own party as they were the electorate in general

Once again, you are defending a claim other than the one I responded to. Relevance is no more what I challenged you on than precedence. But you do not even appear to have any self-consistency in your claims. If Cheney is truly so irrelevant, then why have his comments riled you? Why did you not simply ignore him? You're flailing.

Therefore Obama has a strong mandate from the people on the course of action the American people wished the US government to undertake.

Cheney is critising that course of action, hence the choice endorsed by the American people.

And that, to you, borders on being dictatorial? Stuff and nonsense. What a terribly strange idea you must have of what democracy means. It does not mean conformity, it does not mean absolute adherence of every private citizen to the majority will (and yes, Cheney is a private citizen), it does not mean popular politicians or even the electorate itself are immune from criticism. You have things exactly backwards, in fact: the inability to criticize a popular leader, not the ability to do so, is a hallmark of dictatorships and other authoritarian governments.

[MG1962]

And that, to you, borders on being dictatorial? Stuff and nonsense. What a terribly strange idea you must have of what democracy means. It does not mean conformity, it does not mean absolute adherence of every private citizen to the majority will (and yes, Cheney is a private citizen), it does not mean popular politicians or even the electorate itself are immune from criticism. You have things exactly backwards, in fact: the inability to criticize a popular leader, not the ability to do so, is a hallmark of dictatorships and other authoritarian governments.

I am sorry but after that statement I dont see much point in bothering to continue this discussion.

[Ziggurat]

I am sorry but after that statement I dont see much point in bothering to continue this discussion.

What sort of perverted populism you must believe in.