Full text of Cheney speech

Onceler said:
Cheney's record of PROFESSIONAL failure over 4 decades is well-documented, and something he cannot run from or deny with any credibility.

That's not a personal attack; it is a matter of historical record. On foreign policy, there probably is no public figure with his name recognition who has less credibility.
Click to expand...

Just saying it doesn't make it so Joe!

jonah_goldberg.png


IT'S a lovely thing when the conventional wisdom proves to be so spectacularly wrong.

The entire Democratic Party, not to mention the media establishment, simply took as a given that suave, charming, effulgent, numinous President Obama would mop the floor with grumpy, truculent, sardonic former Vice President Dick Cheney. Yet, on almost every issue he has championed since leaving office, Cheney has won the debate or at least put the White House on the defensive.

From the closing of Gitmo and the placement of terrorists in domestic prisons to the release of the torture memos and the aborted release of prisoner-abuse photos, he holds the higher ground politically or in the polls or both.

Many liberals who take it on faith that Cheney represents all that is evil, cruel and unhip about the Republican Party, not to mention carbon-based life forms, are loath to give him even an ounce of credit for his success. That Obama is backpedaling or off balance on so many fronts, they say, is at best circumstantial evidence that Cheney is having any effect. Well, you know, Thoreau was right: "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." The trout in Obama's milk is the trout fisherman from Casper, Wyo.

There are profound lessons to be learned here. An easy one is that the policies of President George W. Bush that Democrats relentlessly demonized were hardly as extreme, politically or morally, as they alleged. If Bush's anti-terror policies were half as bad as Obama & Co. claimed, the American people and Congress would reject them wholesale and Cheney's arguments would sound like the ravings of a madman. That hasn't happened.

But the more important lesson, at least for conservatives and Republicans, is that arguments matter. If personalities and politics alone drove the issues, then, of course, flannel Cheney would lose against silky Obama. But it turns out that substance is a good counterpunch to style.

That's worth remembering as the GOP figures out how to deal with Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Conservatives think she's wrong on the merits, and even though they will almost surely fail to block her confirmation, there's no reason for them to be ashamed of their stance. If liberals want to call conservatives racist or sexist for opposing the first Hispanic female nominee to the court, conservatives should patiently explain that they wouldn't want to insult her with the soft bigotry of low expectations. After all, if Sotomayor were a rich white male with exactly the same views and philosophies, you can be sure conservatives would oppose her just as vigorously.

But the lesson runs deeper than that battle.

Conventional wisdom also tells us that the GOP needs to become more inclusive. On this score, the conventional wisdom is right, if by "inclusive" you mean getting more people to join the party and vote Republican. But many people mean something else by "inclusive." They think the GOP needs to become the Pepsi to the Democrats' Coca-Cola, indistinguishable save for small matters of taste and marketing.

The conventional wisdom holds that conservatism is in trouble because the GOP is in trouble. But the two aren't one and the same. The GOP's conservative principles aren't necessarily the main reason for its unpopularity. Arguably, Republicans' failure to adhere to their principles when in power hurt them more. A recent Pew Research Center report finds that 37 percent of Americans describe themselves as conservative, while only 19 percent describe themselves as liberal. Conservative principles are still competitive, even after eight years of Bush, a staggering recession and the most popular Democratic president in nearly a half-century. A majority of respondents say that the "federal government controls too much of our daily lives" and that "government regulation of business usually does more harm than good."

Obviously, the GOP is not in an enviable position. But conservatives have been in worse shape countless times before. What they've always done is argue their way forward.

Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich each mounted conservative victories by making arguments for their cause.

The cliche is that politics is about "addition" and that the GOP needs to add more Hispanics or gays or women to its coalition, as if such descriptors define people more than their individual aspirations.

Republicans will never win that fight. Nor should they try to out bean-count the Democrats. Persuasion should trump the pandering of "addition." Conservatives must argue why they are right, not endlessly apologize for their alleged wrongs.

The surest way to lose that argument is by failing to even try to make it. If anything, conservatives owe Cheney gratitude for demonstrating that.

JonahsColumn@aol.com
 
Ice Dancer said:
Just saying it doesn't make it so Joe!

jonah_goldberg.png


IT'S a lovely thing when the conventional wisdom proves to be so spectacularly wrong.

The entire Democratic Party, not to mention the media establishment, simply took as a given that suave, charming, effulgent, numinous President Obama would mop the floor with grumpy, truculent, sardonic former Vice President Dick Cheney. Yet, on almost every issue he has championed since leaving office, Cheney has won the debate or at least put the White House on the defensive.

From the closing of Gitmo and the placement of terrorists in domestic prisons to the release of the torture memos and the aborted release of prisoner-abuse photos, he holds the higher ground politically or in the polls or both.

Many liberals who take it on faith that Cheney represents all that is evil, cruel and unhip about the Republican Party, not to mention carbon-based life forms, are loath to give him even an ounce of credit for his success. That Obama is backpedaling or off balance on so many fronts, they say, is at best circumstantial evidence that Cheney is having any effect. Well, you know, Thoreau was right: "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." The trout in Obama's milk is the trout fisherman from Casper, Wyo.

There are profound lessons to be learned here. An easy one is that the policies of President George W. Bush that Democrats relentlessly demonized were hardly as extreme, politically or morally, as they alleged. If Bush's anti-terror policies were half as bad as Obama & Co. claimed, the American people and Congress would reject them wholesale and Cheney's arguments would sound like the ravings of a madman. That hasn't happened.

But the more important lesson, at least for conservatives and Republicans, is that arguments matter. If personalities and politics alone drove the issues, then, of course, flannel Cheney would lose against silky Obama. But it turns out that substance is a good counterpunch to style.

That's worth remembering as the GOP figures out how to deal with Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Conservatives think she's wrong on the merits, and even though they will almost surely fail to block her confirmation, there's no reason for them to be ashamed of their stance. If liberals want to call conservatives racist or sexist for opposing the first Hispanic female nominee to the court, conservatives should patiently explain that they wouldn't want to insult her with the soft bigotry of low expectations. After all, if Sotomayor were a rich white male with exactly the same views and philosophies, you can be sure conservatives would oppose her just as vigorously.

But the lesson runs deeper than that battle.

Conventional wisdom also tells us that the GOP needs to become more inclusive. On this score, the conventional wisdom is right, if by "inclusive" you mean getting more people to join the party and vote Republican. But many people mean something else by "inclusive." They think the GOP needs to become the Pepsi to the Democrats' Coca-Cola, indistinguishable save for small matters of taste and marketing.

The conventional wisdom holds that conservatism is in trouble because the GOP is in trouble. But the two aren't one and the same. The GOP's conservative principles aren't necessarily the main reason for its unpopularity. Arguably, Republicans' failure to adhere to their principles when in power hurt them more. A recent Pew Research Center report finds that 37 percent of Americans describe themselves as conservative, while only 19 percent describe themselves as liberal. Conservative principles are still competitive, even after eight years of Bush, a staggering recession and the most popular Democratic president in nearly a half-century. A majority of respondents say that the "federal government controls too much of our daily lives" and that "government regulation of business usually does more harm than good."

Obviously, the GOP is not in an enviable position. But conservatives have been in worse shape countless times before. What they've always done is argue their way forward.

Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich each mounted conservative victories by making arguments for their cause.

The cliche is that politics is about "addition" and that the GOP needs to add more Hispanics or gays or women to its coalition, as if such descriptors define people more than their individual aspirations.

Republicans will never win that fight. Nor should they try to out bean-count the Democrats. Persuasion should trump the pandering of "addition." Conservatives must argue why they are right, not endlessly apologize for their alleged wrongs.

The surest way to lose that argument is by failing to even try to make it. If anything, conservatives owe Cheney gratitude for demonstrating that.

JonahsColumn@aol.com
Click to expand...

Heh, Heh!! It's been almost 2 months now that the general told Obama we need more troops in Afghanistan NOW if we want to win this war. Hey, Obama, either shit or get off the pot.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Just saying it doesn't make it so Joe!

jonah_goldberg.png


IT'S a lovely thing when the conventional wisdom proves to be so spectacularly wrong.

The entire Democratic Party, not to mention the media establishment, simply took as a given that suave, charming, effulgent, numinous President Obama would mop the floor with grumpy, truculent, sardonic former Vice President Dick Cheney. Yet, on almost every issue he has championed since leaving office, Cheney has won the debate or at least put the White House on the defensive.

From the closing of Gitmo and the placement of terrorists in domestic prisons to the release of the torture memos and the aborted release of prisoner-abuse photos, he holds the higher ground politically or in the polls or both.

Many liberals who take it on faith that Cheney represents all that is evil, cruel and unhip about the Republican Party, not to mention carbon-based life forms, are loath to give him even an ounce of credit for his success. That Obama is backpedaling or off balance on so many fronts, they say, is at best circumstantial evidence that Cheney is having any effect. Well, you know, Thoreau was right: "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." The trout in Obama's milk is the trout fisherman from Casper, Wyo.

There are profound lessons to be learned here. An easy one is that the policies of President George W. Bush that Democrats relentlessly demonized were hardly as extreme, politically or morally, as they alleged. If Bush's anti-terror policies were half as bad as Obama & Co. claimed, the American people and Congress would reject them wholesale and Cheney's arguments would sound like the ravings of a madman. That hasn't happened.

But the more important lesson, at least for conservatives and Republicans, is that arguments matter. If personalities and politics alone drove the issues, then, of course, flannel Cheney would lose against silky Obama. But it turns out that substance is a good counterpunch to style.

That's worth remembering as the GOP figures out how to deal with Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Conservatives think she's wrong on the merits, and even though they will almost surely fail to block her confirmation, there's no reason for them to be ashamed of their stance. If liberals want to call conservatives racist or sexist for opposing the first Hispanic female nominee to the court, conservatives should patiently explain that they wouldn't want to insult her with the soft bigotry of low expectations. After all, if Sotomayor were a rich white male with exactly the same views and philosophies, you can be sure conservatives would oppose her just as vigorously.

But the lesson runs deeper than that battle.

Conventional wisdom also tells us that the GOP needs to become more inclusive. On this score, the conventional wisdom is right, if by "inclusive" you mean getting more people to join the party and vote Republican. But many people mean something else by "inclusive." They think the GOP needs to become the Pepsi to the Democrats' Coca-Cola, indistinguishable save for small matters of taste and marketing.

The conventional wisdom holds that conservatism is in trouble because the GOP is in trouble. But the two aren't one and the same. The GOP's conservative principles aren't necessarily the main reason for its unpopularity. Arguably, Republicans' failure to adhere to their principles when in power hurt them more. A recent Pew Research Center report finds that 37 percent of Americans describe themselves as conservative, while only 19 percent describe themselves as liberal. Conservative principles are still competitive, even after eight years of Bush, a staggering recession and the most popular Democratic president in nearly a half-century. A majority of respondents say that the "federal government controls too much of our daily lives" and that "government regulation of business usually does more harm than good."

Obviously, the GOP is not in an enviable position. But conservatives have been in worse shape countless times before. What they've always done is argue their way forward.

Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich each mounted conservative victories by making arguments for their cause.

The cliche is that politics is about "addition" and that the GOP needs to add more Hispanics or gays or women to its coalition, as if such descriptors define people more than their individual aspirations.

Republicans will never win that fight. Nor should they try to out bean-count the Democrats. Persuasion should trump the pandering of "addition." Conservatives must argue why they are right, not endlessly apologize for their alleged wrongs.

The surest way to lose that argument is by failing to even try to make it. If anything, conservatives owe Cheney gratitude for demonstrating that.

JonahsColumn@aol.com
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, ID; I mean, about the "just saying so doesn't make it so" part!

Thanks for posting a hack's love letter to Cheney; unfortunately, it doesn't erase his 4 decades of futility, incompetence & incredilby bad judgment. Do you want the list?

Cheney has been as consistently wrong and wrong-headed as any figure in American politics. He is also responsible for the deaths of millions.
 
Onceler said:
Couldn't agree more, ID; I mean, about the "just saying so doesn't make it so" part!

Thanks for posting a hack's love letter to Cheney; unfortunately, it doesn't erase his 4 decades of futility, incompetence & incredilby bad judgment. Do you want the list?

Cheney has been as consistently wrong and wrong-headed as any figure in American politics. He is also responsible for the deaths of millions.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Yurt said:
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

you know the drill...repeat a lie enough..
we all now need to start a death watch clock on the Hugo Obama and add up all the civilians and our military men and women who are unfortunately losing their lives while he parties all around the country and appearing on David Lettermen every other week..
 
Onceler said:
Couldn't agree more, ID; I mean, about the "just saying so doesn't make it so" part!

Thanks for posting a hack's love letter to Cheney; unfortunately, it doesn't erase his 4 decades of futility, incompetence & incredilby bad judgment. Do you want the list?

Cheney has been as consistently wrong and wrong-headed as any figure in American politics. He is also responsible for the deaths of millions.
Click to expand...

Your sounding more and more like the donkey assed democrat you are. Attacking a columnist does not an argument make. Your broad brushes one sided opinions don't either...btw, the joe comment was for you.
 
In response to post #1 by TuTu Monroe.

ARTICLE: President Obama has said he understands the stakes for America. When he announced his new strategy he couched the need to succeed in the starkest possible terms, saying, quote, “If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” (END)

While Obama may have said that maybe he was just humouring the crowd. How many people were involved in 911? We know of 12 or is it 20 highjackers? I assume there were more involved. Let’s say 50. Or 100. Or 200.

Do 200 hundred people need a country to plan such an attack or wouldn’t a camp site in Poland or Germany or Upstate NY hold them all? Where does this idea that terrorists need a country come from?

ARTICLE: In short, to call enhanced interrogation a program of torture is not only to disregard the program’s legal underpinnings and safeguards. Such accusations are a libel against dedicated professionals who acted honorably and well, in our country’s name and in our country’s cause. (END)

Let’s take a closer look. Khalid Sheik Muhammed was waterboarded over 200 times and passed out over 100 times. Passed out = unconscious. Is there anyone who believes an interrogation technique that results in the person falling unconscious is not torture? If so, what do they consider torture? Burning with a cigarette? The medieval rack?

So, the usual response is a thousand American lives were saved. If that could have been accomplished by a few cigarette burns I think most people would find that acceptable, wouldn’t they? Or if he was placed on a rack and stretched until one arm was dislocated but 2000 lives were saved surely one wouldn’t argue against that, would they? Or if by cutting off both thumbs (ref: English Patient) 3000 lives were saved how many of us would say we would have preferred that 3000 people died?

So, should we ban torture assuming the rack and cutting off thumbs is considered torture?

Of course the other side of the coin is if torture is acceptable when saving 3000 lives is it acceptable when saving 300 lives? 30 lives? No lives but thinking it might result in saving lives?

It’s fine to use Khalid Sheik Muhammed as an example. But he wasn’t the only one waterboarded. How many lives were saved by waterboarding the others? We don’t hear too much about that.

Then there’s Abu Ghraib. “Beginning in 2004, accounts of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, including torture[1][2], rape[1], sodomy[2], and homicide[3] of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (also known as Baghdad Correctional Facility) came to public attention. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse)

If there’s a willing homosexual soldier and a hundred lives can be saved is sodomizing a prisoner permitted? Considering it’s an act some people willingly participate in I assume it’s not as discomforting as waterboarding.

So why continue with the “can’t do this” but “can do that” nonsense. Why not just allow torture? Or do we define torture on the basis of the results derived? If we torture the wrong person is “Oops” sufficient?
 
Dick Cheney was a draft dodger, not once but four times. That speaks louder about what he cares about than his patriotic BS today. This is a good old boy group of losers, even Scooter the felon was there. Groupthink at its finest and most hypocritical.

"Eight Main Symptoms of Group Think
1. Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.
2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.
3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
4. Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group.
5. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
6. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.
7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.
8. Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency."
http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~fulmer/groupthink.htm
 
humm, I wonder if Bill Clinton or the Obama were in the military...I'm trying to remember...Oh that's right, no they weren't..
 
meme said:
humm, I wonder if Bill Clinton or the Obama were in the military...I'm trying to remember...Oh that's right, no they weren't..
Click to expand...

Ha ha, "five-deferment cheney" and you're whining about Clinton and Obama.

I changed my mind. I want cheney to keep talking. He's makes liberals look better with every word that drops from his lips.
 
apple0154 said:
In response to post #1 by TuTu Monroe.

ARTICLE: President Obama has said he understands the stakes for America. When he announced his new strategy he couched the need to succeed in the starkest possible terms, saying, quote, “If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” (END)

While Obama may have said that maybe he was just humouring the crowd. How many people were involved in 911? We know of 12 or is it 20 highjackers? I assume there were more involved. Let’s say 50. Or 100. Or 200.

Do 200 hundred people need a country to plan such an attack or wouldn’t a camp site in Poland or Germany or Upstate NY hold them all? Where does this idea that terrorists need a country come from?

ARTICLE: In short, to call enhanced interrogation a program of torture is not only to disregard the program’s legal underpinnings and safeguards. Such accusations are a libel against dedicated professionals who acted honorably and well, in our country’s name and in our country’s cause. (END)

Let’s take a closer look. Khalid Sheik Muhammed was waterboarded over 200 times and passed out over 100 times. Passed out = unconscious. Is there anyone who believes an interrogation technique that results in the person falling unconscious is not torture? If so, what do they consider torture? Burning with a cigarette? The medieval rack?

So, the usual response is a thousand American lives were saved. If that could have been accomplished by a few cigarette burns I think most people would find that acceptable, wouldn’t they? Or if he was placed on a rack and stretched until one arm was dislocated but 2000 lives were saved surely one wouldn’t argue against that, would they? Or if by cutting off both thumbs (ref: English Patient) 3000 lives were saved how many of us would say we would have preferred that 3000 people died?

So, should we ban torture assuming the rack and cutting off thumbs is considered torture?

Of course the other side of the coin is if torture is acceptable when saving 3000 lives is it acceptable when saving 300 lives? 30 lives? No lives but thinking it might result in saving lives?

It’s fine to use Khalid Sheik Muhammed as an example. But he wasn’t the only one waterboarded. How many lives were saved by waterboarding the others? We don’t hear too much about that.

Then there’s Abu Ghraib. “Beginning in 2004, accounts of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, including torture[1][2], rape[1], sodomy[2], and homicide[3] of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (also known as Baghdad Correctional Facility) came to public attention. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse)

If there’s a willing homosexual soldier and a hundred lives can be saved is sodomizing a prisoner permitted? Considering it’s an act some people willingly participate in I assume it’s not as discomforting as waterboarding.

So why continue with the “can’t do this” but “can do that” nonsense. Why not just allow torture? Or do we define torture on the basis of the results derived? If we torture the wrong person is “Oops” sufficient?
Click to expand...

Yes, that was an excellent speech Obama made in March, but as usual he is starting to back-track.

There are many terrorist organizations in the world, not just Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Terrorists are different because they do not have an allegiance to one country, they don't wear uniforms to identify themselves and they are cowards by using women and children for shields. They don't need many to carry out their attacks. I expect the next attack to be bio-chemical.

.....but we did get important information from him, like Bin Laden was planning to hit both coasts simultaneously and other information. That would have crippled us beyond our imagination. To set your heart at ease, I do not condone torture. You are always torturing me, so I think you should be punished severely.

The people who committed the horrible abuse at Abu Ghraib are in prison and I hope they stay there forever.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top