Obama, Cheney battle over Gitmo, terror policy
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Australia's most populated state lifts uranium mining ban
( 0 )
-
Israel blames Iran for series of blasts
( 17 )
-
Obama: Strong U.S.-China ties help rest of the world
( 3 )
-
Santorum surging in Republican presidential race
( 10 )
-
Private funeral Saturday for Whitney Houston
( 2 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
66 Comments
Login to comment
0
TheQuestion
Why doesn't Cheney follow Bush's lead which went something like "President Obama deserves my silence."
0
yabits
Let CEO Cheney keep talking! Keep reminding people why most Americans rejected the Republicans.
LOL! He sounds like Mephistophiles.
0
smartacus
Why doesn't Cheney just enjoy his retirement?
0
soldave
I'm assuming he's one of those people that can't stand being out of the limelight (in stark contrast to Bush). Some people would say that he's being patriotic by making a stand, but does that mean Bush's silence would mean he is unpatriotic? Probably not.
0
SuperLib
Obama needs a plan.
0
skipthesong
I am not going to side with Cheney all the way, nor will I side with O all the way. I think instead of playing politics people need to start looking at this with a more open mind.
0
buddha4brains
But those first 6 months do deserve rebuke and scorn. It is a wonder that Bush-Cheney did not take a political fall for 9-11. And not owning up to his failure to protect America only adds scorn and ridicule to his words now.
0
goodDonkey
Look, Cheney spent 8 years pulling Bush's puppet strings he still considers himself the puppeteer. I am not the least surprised that a megalomaniac is doing what megalomaniacs do. I think many people did not recognize his true nature and many others can't conceive of someone so divergent from normal people. Cheney is one of the biggest A-holes in U.S. history and I can only beg him to keep talking. America has moved on and his rhetoric will push Americans in droves away from that lame conservative way of thinking.
Another point needs to be made. There are more than one "type" of prisoners at Gitmo. There are certainly those involved in the attempt at destroying America by acts of terrorism on our soil. I have heard these idiot conservatives rail on and on about terrorists for years and how there is no justification. I have one. If by an impossible stretch of the imagination the communists had succeeded in, at least, a partial takeover of American soil and began colonizing I would have had no problem committing acts of aggression against Russian civilians who had parked their ass on our soil and were claiming it as their own. I would want them to feel terrorized for invading and colonizing our country. I think the same can be said in some instances of civil war. If you are a defenseless member of a minority race, creed, religion, ethnicity, etc. and acts of genocide are being committed against you have a right to make bombs in your basement and fight anyway possible to retaliate against such atrocities. Both examples I used are acts of terrorism. There are legitimate acts of terrorism. Whether they be few and far between is another matter of debate. If you think that if the Jews in Germany, during the time of the Holocaust committed acts of terrorism on German civilians would have been wrong then you need to have your head examined.
If you try to use my words to say that I condone the terrorist attacks against the U.S. in any way I will attack you; for you would be an idiot. Those were the terrorists who need to be hunted down, like Bush promised. Capturing those terrorist's leader should have been a top priority. It was not a top priority! Cheney found it considerable more prudent to spread his idea of America's power around. Because he chose to do this and not make capturing the terrorist responsible for acts committed on U.S. soil on 09.11.2001 his no. 1, top priority, we did not capture the leader of those terrorists. He SCREWED up! His policies did not work! The administration FAILED. They made a promise to the American people and failed to deliver. They promised to get Ossama bin Laden and failed to meet their promise.
Americans will not forget that failure. Most Americans now believe what I was saying ad nauseum during this past decade and I will be sure to state it to the point of ad nauseumin in the future, to make it, at the very least, an even decade. We should have focused on Afghanistan. I now know many conservatives that agree with that and I acknowledge their capability of using common sense. I believe it is a majority of conservative Americans that believe Iraq was a mistake if not in purpose, certainly in timing. Although it took a considerable amount of time to win American support for many liberal ideas, we will move forward on those principles, of which, we may now succeed. Gitmo will be one of those.
I have no idea who will be a better spokesperson, Obama or Cheney, to get the Gitmo prisons emptied but Cheney is certainly an asset in our column.
Please DICK yell your conservative messages loud and clear; and I want to personally thank you for your efforts after you have left office.
0
stirfry
please DICK just go away
0
goodDonkey
I believe that Obama will formulate a plan. He form a consensus on the proper means of accomplishing the transfer of these prisoners working with governors and congresspersons.
I would like to put forth a question:
Why did Bush close the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq?
DICK is the type of guy who will order the most vile and disgusting acts and then depend on the next president to conceal the photos of the results of his decisions; his policies. DICK is afraid of the light of day reaching the acts he approved of.
0
Proffesor
gooddonkey, your post is just toooo long to read...(yawn)
0
Den Den
If you take the second comma out of the headline, you will see the truth.
0
Triumvere
There was a great cartoon with Dick and Rush sitting together in an empty room with a big GOP banner over their heads. A passerby asks "where are all the others." The reply: "What others?"
BTW, you can call him Dick if you like, but don't capitalize it. That's juvenile and obivious. Just becasue Cheney is petty doesn't mean you have to be too.
0
goodDonkey
Heil Cheney!
Sieg Heil.
The Neo-Cons raise their right arm, raised at an angle of about 45 degrees above the horizontal and slightly sideways to the right and chant.
Sieg Heil.
Sieg Heil.
Sieg Heil.
0
adaydream
Go away dick. you served your country. you've done your damage. Now do us all a favor and go hunting, safely by yourself. < :-)
0
timorborder
Dick Cheney - former Vice President and man of steel, when sheltering behind the bodies of all those American service people and Iraqi civilians who have died needlessly in the War on Errorism (Iraq) while the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan was ignored. Dick should just leave the public arena, his time would be better spent practicing weapons discipline (so he doesn't shoot anyone else). Furthermore, he needs to get it in his head that there is no such thing as "enhanced interrogation techinques." Cut the crxp, waterboarding and other unsavory practices used as "forms of encouragement" are torture pure and simple. He needs to know that, Pelosi needs to know that. There is no claiming of ignorance or of being misled. There is no double standard. If the US wants to torture people to obtain information (whose quality is debatable), then it should stop deceiving itself that it represents a "light of hope." It cannot have it both ways, arguments that the ends justify the means just don't cut it. Either the US represents the good guys and holds itself to a higher moral standard, or it says WTF and goes the whole ten yards in widely using waterboarding, cattle prods, hot pokers, etc. Either option doesn't worry me, however, everybody has to be signing from the same song book.
At the same time, however, despite disliking Cheney, I have to admit that he is showing some courage by sticking with his opinions in the light of some pretty serious criticism. It is unfortunate, however, that he didn't show the same sense of conviction when he had an opportunity to serve himself. BTW, the same goes for Rush Limbaugh.
0
soldave
Triumvere - "BTW, you can call him Dick if you like, but don't capitalize it. That's juvenile and obivious." Or it could just be internetspeak for shouting.
0
buddha4brains
A fact checking story on Yahoo had a long list of factual errors in Cheney's speech.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3237981
Also, David Brooks of the NYT has an interesting take which puts Bush in a more positive light and Cheney about right where he is now.
0
SushiSake3
I strongly encourage the former Vice President to keep talking for 2 reasons:
1/ It's awesome comedy.
2/ Cheney's words have finalized the Republican Party's descent into irrelevance in his ongoing War On Reality.
While the real War on Terror was going down in Afghanistan, Cheney was putting troops into....Iraq.
When U.S. generals were calling out for more troops in Iraq, Cheney and co. said 'no,' and it was only until 3, nearly 4 long years later did the "surge" take place - to give the generals what they asked for at the outset of the war.
When Cheney was talking about 'making America safer,' his invasion of Iraq made Iran - one of the biggest threats against America - stronger than ever before.
What drives Cheney? Love of country? Hell no! Cheney is driven by plain selfishness and contempt for his opponents and fellow citizens.
0
SushiSake3
But at least Dick Cheney can find comfort in the fact that he is **still **the Republicans' pin-up boy. LOL! :-)
The bottom line is this: The longer Cheney stays in the public eye, the deeper the hole will get for the Republicans.
Don't Republicans get this? Cheney is one among many key reasons the GOP was smashed by the biggest losing margin in 50 years last November.
Cheney - the man and his failed doctrine - were behind the GOP's failure last November. He loses votes.
Will the GOP EVER become relevant again?
Oh boy, if 2012 sees a Limpbow/Palin ticket backed up by Cheney, I'm going to become a fully paid up lifetime member of the Republicans so I can witness yet another spectacular GOP collapse from the inside! :-)
0
SushiSake3
**Talking about Cheney and fightin' terror, here is an excerpt from a very good article about the subject - **
"If Cheney agrees that he would use that hot poker to reveal the location of a nuclear bomb, he is a war criminal, a torturer no different than the thugs that Saddam used to torture his opponents. If he would not use that hot poker, he is admitting that torture is wrong, and therefore that waterboarding is wrong. And he is therefore a war criminal for approving waterboarding.
But the problem is not only that Cheney's position on torture is untenable. He has no credibility. Cheney never served in the military and has no field experience. His views on the efficacy of torture are counter to expressed views of experts from the FBI, CIA, and multiple branches of the military. The man has zero standing on this issue."
Full article: www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/dick-cheney-will-protectb206420.html
0
SushiSake3
It's pretty telling when you see the small remaining Republican base continuing to defend a 5-time draft dodger who just didn't have the spine to fight for his country.
Cheney failed, his supporters failed, the GOP failed.
It all makes sense. :-)
0
SushiSake3
**The following statements from Dick Cheney are just a few of reasons why Republicans still flock to the former Vice President - **
"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there."
He was wrong. Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda, and Cheney knew that when he made this statement.
"In terms of the question what is there now, we know for example that prior to our going in that he had spent time and effort acquiring mobile biological weapons labs, and we're quite confident he did, in fact, have such a program. We've found a couple of semi trailers at this point which we believe were, in fact, part of that program."
The balloon trucks. He was wrong.
Cheney falsely claimed that insurgents were timing their attacks to influence the mid-term election in the United States. The claim was so absurd that even President Bush finally had to go public and disavow the statement, admitting that they had no intelligence to suggest anything like what Cheney was claiming.
0
SushiSake3
teleprompter, your poll is irrelevant.
You party is out of power. That's the only thing that matters.
But please keep trying to pretend the GOP is still a relevant party, it's hilarious. :-)
And before I forget, I have to personally thank you. Thank you for believing all of the bush/cheney lies that ultimately put the GOP out of the political picture.
Your nation is indebted to you for your service. :-)
0
SushiSake3
Ha ha, it just gets better -
Democrats and Republicans may have found an area of agreement: Dick Cheney should keep on campaigning for the GOP cause.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/gop-wants-more-help-fromn206503.html
Almost crying with laughter!! :-) :-) Go Dick!
0
sailwind
I could swear this story mentions Obama somewhere in it.
0
SushiSake3
Sail, what's your angle on Dick Cheney's comments, in particular on torture - whether torture methods were effective, should be continued, etc.?
0
sailwind
Sushi,
No offense, but I really don't care about Dick Cheney comments anymore. I'm more concerned with Obama's comments now. As far as the way he is conducting the war on terror, he's just improving on the way the Bush administration conducted it. He sure hasn't done any radical thing to change the course that was set that is for sure. GITMO is still in business, Military Tribunals are going to be restarted, and the Democrats have voted resoundly to keep the detainees out of the U.S proper.
They pretty much endorsed the basic Bush policy as hard as that is for you accept, but facts are facts.
0
SushiSake3
Sail, I like it how Obama has placed far more emphasis on Afghanistan than on Iraq.
0
sailwind
As far as torture, glad you asked. I don't think I've really clarified my stance on it. I think it should be banned with one exception. Only on the authorization of the President of the United States for a person that poses an immediate (key word, not plots, or planning) but immediate information that if not revealed would cause the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans. A suspect you have in custody that knows where the dirty radioactive bomb has been planted and the time it is set to go off for example, would meet my criteria as the only time that it could be used. Also Sushi, if you use my standard waterboarding would never occur on the A.Q plotters we have in custody. They were only in the planning stages, not in the immediate threat phase when we nabbed them.
My opinion on torture.
0
teleprompter
There's no battle.
Cheney won. America won.
Obama, his Lefty fans and the Islamofascists lost.
0
sharky1
Looks like Barack is rubbing Dick the wrong way.
0
SushiSake3
Sail, thank you for your reply.
One of the most sensible, well thought out posts on JT today. :-)
0
Molenir
I posted this elsewhere too, but watching both speeches, if this was a debate, I'd say Cheney won. Obama just didn't do nearly as good a job. However, like others have mentioned, Cheney just doesn't have the credibility. At least not with me. I'm a conservative Republican, and his having been involved with the Bush administration, and their near total abandonment of conservative principles, just doesn't set well with me. Despite the good points he was making in his speech.
Still, I have to hope Obama keeps talking. Get him away from his Teleprompter, and he starts to make Bush sound smart.
0
Taka313
Now this is why I enjoy my boy, teleprompter's posts.
There's no battle he says...then he points out who, in his opinion, the winners and losers of the non-battle are.
Ozzy, you better tell Sharon that someone hijacked your train.
Taka
0
teleprompter
Yup, I do believe our boy Obama is hard at work a-cementin' Big Dubya's legacy.
Gitmo?
Still open fer bidness!
Feelin' the change yet?
0
ca1ic0cat
It is apparent that Cheney thinks that if you are "in the right" you are able to commit crimes and be forgiven. I am sure Dick and GWB would be in a righteous snit if any of our soldiers were tortured by an enemy. But somehow it's all right for the US to use torture.
That kind of twisted logic leads to fascism.
0
teleprompter
Did it lead to "fascism" in England?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/12/secondworldwar.world
Did it lead to "fascism" in Canada?
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/27/world/torture-by-army-peacekeepers-in-somalia-shocks-canada.html
0
VOR
Dick Cheney just smacked down the sitting president. Obama you just been served.
0
SezWho2
That old chestnut! The observation, not Cheney.
I don't think that Obama was rebuking or scorning the seven-and-a-half years. I think he was saying that there was no connection between the seven-and-a-half years and Guantanamo. And I think he was further saying that if there is a connection, Guantanamo is more likely to spur further attacks than to prevent them.
I could plant marigolds in my front lawn to keep burglars away. An absence of break-ins would not indicate the effectiveness of marigolds as a deterrent.
0
smithinjapan
sailwind: "Only on the authorization of the President of the United States for a person that poses an immediate (key word, not plots, or planning) but immediate information that if not revealed would cause the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans."
Here's the problem: you say, 'information that if not revealed would cause the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans', but you see, there's no possible way you can know that before the fact, and you run into the same age-old problems that make torture in any form wrong. Let's say you got the okay from the Commander in Chief, tortured the guy, and then it turned out he knew nothing and therefore didn't reveal anything that would save lives, despite some 'key word'. Is it still okay you did it?
No justifying torture, my friend, since the things you use to rationalize torture would require time-travel (again, you cannot know for sure beforehand), and if you had that you wouldn't 'need' to torture anyway, by anyone's criteria.
0
DickMorris
smithinjspsn; All methods including torture must be allowed if it would save innocent American lives. I don' t want another 9/11 buddy.
As an independent i have come to the conclusion that Cheney is right on all counts. Obama has no backbone and is giving into the liberal elite and their progressive policies which were proved under Clinton to be a failure. Cheney is a patriot, it is appalling some of the bad things written about him on here.
0
sailwind
Then it would be the Presidents decision if he felt he had to and it would be his decision and his alone......That part should come with his job smith.
0
Sarge
Sushi&Sake3: "I like... how Obama has placed far more emphasis on Afghanistan than on Iraq"
Then how come we're projected to have far more troops in Iraq than in Afghanistan even another year from now?
0
smithinjapan
DickMorris: "smithinjspsn; All methods including torture must be allowed if it would save innocent American lives. I don' t want another 9/11 buddy."
Hindsight is 20/20; believing you can torture people based on past events and without any evidence of future events is more than blind. In other words, you are as bad as they are.
sailwind: I wasn't talking about the president, since YOU were asked if you condone it, and I was pointing out my problem with what you said. But go ahead and answer the question. Is it still okay in your mind? You said, you're okay with it if the president okays it and it saves lives, but if it doesn't save lives it's suddenly 'the President's decision' and... well... you've never said if you would still be okay with it or not. That was my problem with what you said, and my question to you. Clearly your inability to answer indicates that you either struggle a bit with the question from a moral standpoint, or that you know it would make you a little less moral to simply say 'yes, I would be okay with it'.
Again, same problem as before, unless you possess some weird ability to know beforehand the guy knows something that will save American lives. Until then, you're in the same boat as after-the-fact DickMorris.
0
smithinjapan
sailwind: "Then it would be the Presidents decision if he felt he had to and it would be his decision and his alone......That part should come with his job smith."
Sorry... one more point on this debate, since you couldn't answer my question... it IS the president's decision, and he decided all torture is wrong, bottom line. That part came with his job... you guys just don't like his decision, and the fact that what Cheney admitted to is torture, and a crime.
0
Sarge
Question: Were we attacked by terrorists before Gitmo opened?
0
VOR
As we finally start to learn the truth about water boarding, we come to find out that it was only used on three of the highest echelon AQ terrorist held at GITMO for the intent purpose of preventing any further attacks after 911. The phony moralists on the left (yeah you know who you are) intentionally distort the truth by trying to make it appear that these enhanced interrogation techniques were wide spread. Cheney with the truth on his side will dismantle the left's house of cards.
0
teleprompter
Smith stamps his feet: "it IS the president's decision, and he decided all torture is wrong, bottom line."
Obama has allowed rendition to continue.
"The highly controversial anti-terror practice of rendition will continue under Barack Obama, it has emerged."
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html]
"Torture" is no doubt still an option.
Obama counts on suckers to look the other way...
0
VOR
According to the left, Bush didn't do enough to protect America from 911 and did too much to protect America from post 911 attacks. Good on Cheney for finding a way to get the truth to the American public so that the birdbrains currently in power are held accountable when that dirty bomb hits one or more of our cities.
0
Taka313
"cheney, with the truth on his side..."
That was the best line of fiction I've read since rereading the opening to A Tale of Two Cities.
cheney is megalomaniac who cannot stand that his machinations are being dismantled, and the people are happy for it; and America is no less safe.
I can't blame him. I'd be angry too if I had zero conscience and the last 8 years of my life's work were exposed as being detrimental to my nation.
But, having a conscience, if I'd done as much damage as dick, I'd just sip my cup of STFU quietly in the corner and pray I don't end up in front of the Hague, instead of whoring out my family on TV to defend an indensible reputation.
But that's just me.
Taka
0
ca1ic0cat
There is no excuse for torture. Are "Americans" so far above other people that we can use torture to save ourselves by harming others? That's a warped morality.
"Progressives make me laugh, with their ironic, embarrassing, almost exclusively Ameri-centric view of world."
I thought the "progressives" were arguing that nobody should be tortured even if the torture might save American lives. How is that Ameri-centric?
"All methods including torture must be allowed if it would save innocent American lives. I don' t want another 9/11 buddy." - DickMorris
Now that is Ameri-centric. Nobody wants another 9/11. But Gitmo has not prevented it. Gitmo has just provided the terrorists with a recruitment tool.
I would submit that, by taking the fight to Iraq, GWB made it easier for the terrorist wannabes to attack the military (and each other) rather than go through the difficulty in pulling off an attack in the US. This is what prevented another 9/11 and is probably the benefit of the war in Iraq that is not talked about.
Waging war is one thing, stooping to torture is not a solution to anything.
0
adaydream
Conservative talk shows are playing and replaying sound bites from cheney's speach and just beaming. One of them is cheney saying, paraphrased, "...you can't understand what it feels like to be under the Whitehouse in a bunker while we're being attacked...."
So he was scared in the bunker while the rest of America wasn't hiding in some bunker. he was down there planning his next plot... attacking Iraq. How to tie Iraq and Al-Quaeda together.
Play more sound bites. Let cheney talk more. Give him a microphone to carry around. I'm loving his time behind the mic. < :-)
0
teleprompter
You suited up for Bush - capital B, btw - for 8 long years.
We'll take your word, with the usual grain of salt.
0
zurcronium
everyone knows cheney tortured to get anything he could get on the OBL Iraq connection, where none existed. Many who were tortured for this information died, basically they were murdered by bush and cheney.
If the two losers bush and cheney really wanted to protect the US they would have read the intelligence report that said OBL was going to use planes to fly into buildings. Both of them did nothing because all they could see was the oil in Iraq. American lives, no matter, oil for exxon in iraq, that mattered.
0
amerijap
Nothing is more dangerous than making an extreme case to a general rule such as endorsing CIA's harsh interrogation tactics-- water-boarding, sleep deprivation, and the series of abuses-- under the pretext of protecting the lives of civilians. They are all migrated from Guantanamo to Abu Grhaib.
0
pathat
Both parties would do well to pay full attention to the impending collapse of the U.S. dollar and the exploding budget deficits, instead of dickering around about who is right and who is wrong concerning "Homeland Security."
Bush/Cheney dug a big hole to put the American economy in, but Obama/Biden are excavating a new Grand Canyon to bury it in for good.
0
JoeBigs
All Dick is looking for is a book deal that is the only reason he is speaking out.
0
Wolfpack
Since President Obama scheduled a dueling speech with Cheney on national security and Obama has just recently lost the Gitmo closure vote in Congress, I think it's likely that Dick is doing the rubbing.
0
SebastianFlyte
I wouldn't qualify anything Cheney says by responding to his comments. He is a crook, had his chance, and ruined the country. He should be hung drawn and quartered for high treason (along with his pup, Bush and the others)
0
zurcronium
the only folks who support cheney now are the non-thinkers. they live word by word from the hate speech of hannity, beck and limbaugh. All three of those guys play their listeners off as dupes, all those guys want is the money. If liberals were as gullible as the wingers then beck would be working the liberal crowd for the big payoffs. But we liberals like to think for ourselves and not be told what and how to think by empty suits with drug problems, or shills for the oil industry.
Back to top