Cheney's KO of Obama

Cheney is a bitter, old fool and it shows.....
Quote from bugscoe:

The 10 punches Dick Cheney landed on Barack Obama's jaw

"The spectacle of two duelling speeches with a mile of each other in downtown Washington was extraordinary. I was at the Cheney event and watched Obama's address on a big screen beside the empty lectern that the former veep stepped behind barely two minutes after his adversary had finished.

So who won the fight? (it's hard to use anything other than a martial or pugilistic metaphor). Well, most people are on either one side or the other of this issue and I doubt today will have prompted many to switch sides.

But the very fact that Obama chose to schedule his speech (Cheney's was announced first) at exactly the same time as the former veep was a sign of some weakness..."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_h...nches_dick_cheney_landed_on_barack_obamas_jaw
More...
 
Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.


I remember my surprise when I've read about this some time ago. Really,really surprised.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Cheney is apparently the last remaining alpha male in the republican party. While the republican "leadership" is wimpering about the media or trying to get in touch with their values, this 68 year old is taking Obama to the hole and dunking on him.

From Bloomberg:

Cheney Clashes With Obama as Republicans Avoid Fight (Update1)


By Hans Nichols and Justin Blum

May 22 (Bloomberg) -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney accomplished something yesterday that Republicans have seldom been able to do: directly challenge President Barack Obama in real time on a major policy issue.

In a nationally televised speech delivered just minutes after Obama had spoken on how to protect the U.S. against terrorism, Cheney defended the decisions he and former President George W. Bush made after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects.

While Republican leaders have largely avoided direct attacks on Obama and focused instead on Democratic congressional leaders, Cheney, 68, has taken the opposite tack. Republican lawmakers and strategists said he was able to raise the intensity of the criticism yesterday because, unlike other party members, he isn’t worried about damaging any future political ambitions by taking on a popular president.

Cheney “might not have the highest favorability ratings, but on this issue, I think he’s viewed by people across the country as being very credible and very knowledgeable,” said Senator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican. “What he says carries a lot of weight.”

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Cheney’s prominence in the debate was actually an advantage for the administration, because it showed disarray within the Republican Party.

Anyone But Cheney

Most Republicans would probably prefer to be represented by a standard-bearer whose name was “picked out of a hat” rather than Cheney, Emanuel said in an interview.

In a poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp. that was released this week, 55 percent of respondents said they had an unfavorable opinion of Cheney, compared with 37 percent who had a favorable view. That was an 8-percentage-point improvement from January, when Bush and Cheney left office with approval ratings near the lowest levels in history. By contrast, Obama’s approval ratings have been above 60 percent since he took office Jan. 20.

Still, Republican strategist Jim Pinkerton said Cheney’s popularity “doesn’t really matter,” because he “is not running for anything.” What is important, he said, is that “Cheney absolutely has the better of the argument.”

Ask Harry Reid

Pinkerton pointed to the 90-6 vote in the Senate on May 20 when Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, joined Republicans to strip from a spending measure the $80 million Obama requested to fulfill his promise to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the end of the year.

“Don’t take my word for it, take Harry Reid’s word for it,” Pinkerton said.

Obama appeared yesterday at the National Archives, the repository of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, to criticize the previous administration’s policies and build public support for his national-security approach in the wake of reversals such as the Senate vote.

The detention center at Guantanamo, he said, “set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world.” The Bush administration “was defending positions that undermined the rule of law,” he said. Its decisions on how to handle suspected terrorists were built on “ad hoc” legal measures that were “neither effective nor sustainable.”

‘Most Fundamental Values’

“We also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values,” Obama said. “Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset.”

The president also indicated that some prisoners who can’t be tried for legal reasons and are considered too dangerous to let go may be held indefinitely.

He noted that more than 500 Guantanamo detainees had been released under the Bush administration.

Almost as soon as Obama finished his remarks, Cheney began speaking just two miles away, at the American Enterprise Institute, a research organization that generally supported Bush’s policies.

He opened his speech by joking about Obama’s address starting late. His tone quickly turned more grave as he claimed that interrogation tactics such as waterboarding saved American lives.

‘Stop Them’

“When an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them,” he said. He would make those decisions again “without hesitation,” he said.

“Our government prevented attacks and saved lives,” Cheney said at AEI, where his wife, Lynne, is a senior fellow. “Only detainees of the highest intelligence value were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Cheney faulted Obama for releasing Justice Department memos that authorized the use of those techniques. Doing so “was flatly contrary to the national security interests of the United States,” Cheney said.

John Feehery, a Republican consultant, said Cheney’s instant response to Obama gave his party one of its rare victories since the Democrats took control of the White House and both chambers of Congress in the November election: the ability to challenge Obama’s domination of the airwaves and the news cycle.

That success, said Feehery, who served as spokesman for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, was linked to the decision to engage the Democrats on the theme of national security, a subject where Republicans have historically had an advantage.

‘Everything We Could’

“The percentages are more with Cheney than Obama,” Feehery said. “What Cheney is basically arguing is that we did everything we could to make the country safer, and what Obama is arguing is that we don’t have to do as much to make the country safer.”

Feehery said Cheney had gotten the better of the president with barbed lines like one in which he said the current administration’s approach is more geared to receiving “applause in Europe” than protecting America’s security.

“There’s no doubt about it, this is the first time they’ve got him,” he said. “This is the first time that Republicans feel like they have some momentum.”

He said Cheney’s defense of the Bush policies as necessary to protect the U.S. will seem prescient in the event of a terrorist attack.

“If something goes wrong, people are going to remember what Cheney said,” Feehery said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Hans Nichols in Washington at hnichols2@bloomberg.net; Justin Blum in Washington at jblum4@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: May 22, 2009 11:00 EDT
More...


Obama and Emanuel. Two lightweights if there ever were any. Not a big fan of Cheney, but someone needs to balance this out and see how tough they really are.

Also, if you have to continually harp on the prior administration.......makes them look incompetent.
 
Quote from jficquette:
Cheney should suggest that Obama and he have a public debate about it.
No teleprompters.
More...
Yes, that would be a no brainer.
DickCheneyWB1nobrainer.gif
 
All it will take is someone with a stronger personality that will not pull any punches to roll right over over him. Empty suit.............curtain hanging loser. The time is nigh to let it all hang out.
 
Besides confusing Capitalism and inept regulatory agencies, the other bothersome trait of this administration is their naive foreign policy.

We all learn in grade school to stand our ground. While Bush/Cheney made whatever mistakes you want to tag them with (have at it, don't care), we weren't attacked, and Obamas' assertion that they were criminals and all is misplaced. I only care about living. I don't want to vaporized, and I really don't give a shit what they do to terrorists. I really don't care. I want to protect US cities, and US citizens. I'm glad I don't have to deal with the nuances, but I'd be the last one to chase down citizens who do.

Second. Jessica Lynch was wheeled to a window where she watched members of her unit tortured and beheaded. There are vids on the net of that happening to Marines. So, what worse will they do to our Military? When the Russians fougt there, they knew not to get caught. These people are worse than animals, and when they surface, and declare they want to destroy Israel, or us, take the gloves off. You see what an outstretched hand to Iran has accomplished.

Obama has a high probability of overseeing a massive tragedy. He'll have to live with it. Because he gets to grab the family and Bo, and retreat to a bunker. You and I don't.

He is an arrogant, corrupt machine politician. We deserve better.
 
Quote from Tom B:

What is the principle?
More...

Not kidnapping, imprisoning, and abusing innocent people for years based on poor or non-existent evidence? Actually having legal safeguards, full due process, and other mechanisms to try to ensure people are actually guilty? Conducting swift and fair justice? You know, the sort of thing the US put in its constitution a couple hundred years ago.
 
? You can be certain the U.S. constitution extends ZERO liberties to enemy combatants seized in Asia.

Get real. The funny thing about this debate is three decades ago these Afghan prisoners would've been killed on the spot.

Quote from Cutten:

Not kidnapping, imprisoning, and abusing innocent people for years based on poor or non-existent evidence? Actually having legal safeguards, full due process, and other mechanisms to try to ensure people are actually guilty? Conducting swift and fair justice? You know, the sort of thing the US put in its constitution a couple hundred years ago.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top