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

reply to post by pavil


You trying to tell us al-queda was/is a real threat and not some make believe organization created as a pre-text for war and profit? Do you and others really think that IF al-queda was a real AND SERIOUS threat that nato would not have dealt them a deadly blow as soon as they were discovered? Nato had all the technology at their disposal to destroy al-queda yet nobody seemed to care until 9-11...YEAH RIGHT MAN!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by pavil

 

You trying to tell us al-queda was/is a real threat and not some make believe organization created as a pre-text for war and profit? Do you and others really think that IF al-queda was a real AND SERIOUS threat that nato would not have dealt them a deadly blow as soon as they were discovered? Nato had all the technology at their disposal to destroy al-queda yet nobody seemed to care until 9-11...YEAH RIGHT MAN!

Your memory is pretty fuzzy I guess. The Bush I and Clinton Administrations both seemed to consider AQ real, but I guess all three administrations were in on it right? And now the Obama administration too. I know, what a stretch: a Militant, Islamic Fundamentalist group being a western hating terrorist?


Still no one has come up with a good response to my earlier post. Why doesn't the Obama administration release the intelligence that was gathered from the waterboarding if it didn't protect Americans? Seems a pretty obvious way to prove that the waterboarding didn't work, no? Nah, let's demonize the people who have tried to protect us instead.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by pavil]

reply to post by pavil


I see, because a drone spots someone that they believe to be a person who might have been involved in a terrorist attack, we should have the right to kill that person?

Sorry, but that is insane, and criminal.

When actively engaged in a war, or course engage the enemy at any time, but taking out people who don't pose and immediate and clear threat is not acceptable.

Obama and the democrats are not exactly messiahs but they sure beat the republicans and especially the neo-cons(yeah they conned the people all right)

I see a lot of obama haters but to be honest I think it is TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED as of yet. Yes they pushed another 1 trillion on the people but so did bush a few months prior to leaving office. Its quite amazing how soon people forget the FACTS! And which party put us in this terrible mess by lying, spending billions on pre-emptive wars, planning and executing 9-11, killing thousands of americans, british, ausies, iraqis, afghans and others?

Which party gives tax breaks only to wealthy people and corporations?

Which party puts wealth generation over the enviroment?

Which party shreaded the constitution with the patriot act?

Which party supports torture as a means to gather intelligence?

Which party keeps sabbotaging national healthcare EVENTHOUGH half our population is uninsured?

Which party thinks very little of anti-trust laws?

Which party wants to cut social security benefits to anyone living abroad?

---------End of quiz---------

If you answered republican party for all the above then you get A+

Republicans have ZERO right to bitch about ANYTHING!

reply to post by mmiichael
Hi,
You seem to have missed what I was saying,
So here goes again,the OP is demanding everyone to comment on
Dick Cheney's words..he does not, and also says Dick Cheney is a patriot
without comment.
I did comment on the torture camps,that is my opinion.
So it is up to the OP to make comment on his opinon and why,
that is reasonable debate,thanks for the reply.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Which party gives tax breaks only to wealthy people and corporations?

Republicans are for tax breaks for everyone who pay taxes.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Which party shreaded the constitution with the patriot act?

Which party supports torture as a means to gather intelligence?

The Patriot Act that Obama voted FOR, as well as many other Democrats?

Torture...It's called Enhanced Interrogation and it was AOK with the Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Which party keeps sabbotaging national healthcare EVENTHOUGH half our population is uninsured?

Don't like our healthcare? Go to Canada and wait and wait and wait, meanwhile Canadians are rushing over here to get treated.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


Republicans have ZERO right to bitch about ANYTHING!

But when Republicans had control dissent was Patriotic, now we have no right to complain? Hypocrite!!!!

Originally posted by RRconservative
blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

1. "I've heard occasional speculation that I'm a different man after 9/11. I wouldn't say that, but I'll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities."

How is this a punch landed to obama's jaw?
Cheney says 9/11 really didn't change him. How cold and soulless is he? Everyone I know has been drastically changed forever due to 9/11 and we didn't get to HIDE in a bomb proof, radiation proof, chemical proof, self sustaining bunker surrounded by military personnel.

2. "The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law- enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact: arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed."

And?

3. "By presidential decision last month, we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public's right to know.

Which you failed to do during your own administration.

We're informed as well that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Shows the mark of a good leader.

Yet somehow, when the soul searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth."

Care to be specific?

4. "It's hard to imagine a worse precedent filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessor.

Unless the predecessor is indeed a criminal. Nobody is above the law including you mr. cheney.

Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers, who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security and what it requires."

Not at all. We prosecute war criminals in the US.

5. "We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country, things we didn't know about al Qaeda. We didn't know about al Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we did not think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all."

So let's torture them??? That's what cheney is saying here. Oh and did he forget about the part where interrogators were able to get large quantities of reliable intel by simple interviews? Why didn't cheney mention that little fact?
And what exactly did they find out from him from torture that saved lives mr. cheney??? why not tell us that either?

6. "On his second day in office, President Obama announced he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo.

Oh you mean the illegal foreign prison where you held individuals indefinitely and without any semblance of due process?

This step came with little deliberation, and no plan. Now the president says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system.

Sounds fair since we're imposing US law on them, they should be able to utilize it for their defense.

Others, he says, will be shipped to third countries; but so far, the United States has had little luck getting other countries to take hardened terrorists."

You didn't seem to have a problem shipping them to third countries to be tortured. Even the innocent ones that were kidnapped.

7. "The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo,

You know why? Because it's the right thing to do.

but it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interest of justice and America's national security."

Hard decisions are rarely easy. If you can't figure that out, you should never have been vice president of anything let alone the US.

8. "If fine speechmaking, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field."

Isn't that what you're doing now? If you're implying obama shouldn't do it but it's ok for you, what does that make you, besides a traitor and war criminal?

9. "It's worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the president himself.

Good point so why didn't the bush administration have the integrity to utilize it?

President Obama has used his declassification authority to reveal what happens in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials."

Why didn't you before your administration ended? If something did not happen because you had someone tortured, why didn't you release the same info you're asking him to release now? Let me answer that for you. Because there isn't any to release.

10. "To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems.

Oh you mean killing our troops? Good job ass clown !!!

We focused on getting their secrets instead of sharing ours with them.

Such as? I know, we should just take your word for it right? Because you've been such a bastion of truth......oooohhhh pllleeeaaseeee !

And on our watch, they never hit this country again.

How long did 9/11 take to plan? Quite a long time. Why not tell us exactly how many attempts you foiled since attacks didn't happen on your watch. Ever think that maybe they just weren't ready and you got lucky.

After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, 7- 1/2 years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized."

Ah this is where he tips his hat that he's worried about being prosecuted for his role in this debockle .

Dick Cheney is a true Patriot.

Maybe if we're talking about being a patriot to al queda but not an American patriot. Our patriots don't try to dismantle our Constitution and commit war crimes.

If the GOP is looking for leadership and guidance they don't have to look any further than this man right here.

I don't think the GOP wants this kind of leadership. I understand that the New nazi party is hiring however. He should submit a resume. With all his qualifications, he should be able to climb through the ranks rather quickly.

Originally posted by RRconservative

But when Republicans had control dissent was Patriotic, now we have no right to complain? Hypocrite!!!!

Where do you get that?
During the bush administration, dissent got you on a terror watch list, or got you censored (aka no freedom of speech).

Not sure where you got, "disent was patriotic" but that's simply not true.

Remember bush's Free Speech Zone's ??? Oh sure you could protest when he drove through but nowhere near where he was driving. You had to protest around the corner, out of sight while people with pro-bush signs were always welcomed along his routes. Censorship much?

Originally posted by smurfy

You seem to have missed what I was saying,
So here goes again,the OP is demanding everyone to comment on
Dick Cheney's words..he does not, and also says Dick Cheney is a patriot
without comment.

I did comment on the torture camps,that is my opinion.
So it is up to the OP to make comment on his opinon and why,
that is reasonable debate

You're right and I didn't catch the point in reading quickly and with the OP being so far back.

I'll only reiterate my initial response - we're narrow focusing here on Cheney's pointed rebuttal.

On American patriotism - it's now become an abused sentiment. It was once justifiable as a belief in the fairest system of governance and the country that embodied it.

Now it's a buzzword for protecting American based rampant capitalism and it's handlers.

I'm not American, but look at Cheney & co as an extended period of gross mismanagement in a critical period.


Mike

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by RRconservative

But when Republicans had control dissent was Patriotic, now we have no right to complain? Hypocrite!!!!

Where do you get that?
During the bush administration, dissent got you on a terror watch list, or got you censored (aka no freedom of speech).

Not sure where you got, "disent was patriotic" but that's simply not true.

Remember bush's Free Speech Zone's ??? Oh sure you could protest when he drove through but nowhere near where he was driving. You had to protest around the corner, out of sight while people with pro-bush signs were always welcomed along his routes. Censorship much?

"Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism" was a huge mantra and rally cry for the left during the Bush years. How soon they forget now that "The One" is in charge.

Want to buy the bumper sticker?

www.cafepress.com...

How about the T-Shirt?

www.cafepress.com...

reply to post by RRconservative


You seem to misunderstand me.
I'm not saying obama is great or the second coming.

I'm saying your statement that dissent during the bush administration was considered patriotic is BLATANTLY FALSE.

I'm not a democrat or republican.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by pavil

 

I see, because a drone spots someone that they believe to be a person who might have been involved in a terrorist attack, we should have the right to kill that person?

Sorry, but that is insane, and criminal.

When actively engaged in a war, or course engage the enemy at any time, but taking out people who don't pose and immediate and clear threat is not acceptable.

So are we at war with Bin Laden now? Do you have to wait for complete certainty to eliminate a threat when given an opportunity. It was obvious that there was a very high probability that the person in question was Bin Laden, not too many very tall men wearing Arab dress in Afghanstan surrounded by a guard entourage in a know domicile of Bin Laden. Bin Laden at the time (Oct 2000) was known to have plotted and was continuing to plot attacks against the US, I guess that's not clear and immediate enough for you.


You make it sound as if you would never take him out if unless we could physically ID him 100%, we would never get him that way.

We disagree on this point that much is clear.

reply to post by mmiichael
Thanks for the reply,
And I appreciate what you say.
For me,and you can see where I live,
(I am English ,but have lived
in Nothern Ireland since the early 60's) so I have a lot
of knowledge of what went on in the conflict here,
and as regards the internment camps
that used to be here,some prisoners in those camps
were not always
the person as defined by military intelligence,
same name,but could have been sons or daughters,
or somebody else altogether,but not always a real suspect,
so at least one precedent set there.
You should not expect the same thing happening elsewhere with familiar name patterns, but it could have,may have.

reply to post by pavil


Bin Laden was suspected of plotting terrorist attacks on the U.S., which is not adequate enough to take out the first tall guy with nice clothes at a military training camp in Afghanistan.

Intelligence reported that a hospital in the Sudan was producing chemical weapons, so Clinton ordered it to be bombed, and repubs screamed like stuck pigs about abuse of power, now you are saying Clinton should have blown up a military camp in Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, imagine what the repub hypocrites would have like then.

None of this changed the fact that GW and Cheney allowed terrorists to blow up major targets in two U.S. cities in a supposed attack that we very preventable. Not one interceptor was scrambled until long after the incident. It was incompetence on an unprecedented scale.

If the op didn't want criticism, then he shouldn't have quoted some third rate blog talking about Cheney landing blows in Obama. To complain about people hitting back is just ridiculous. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Originally posted by poet1b

... that GW and Cheney allowed terrorists to blow up major targets in two U.S. cities in a supposed attack that we very preventable. Not one interceptor was scrambled until long after the incident. It was incompetence on an unprecedented scale.

The story still to be clarified on 9/11 is who told what to whom. Among the intelligence agencies the FBI withheld information from the CIA and vice versa. The White House was kept apprised but we don't know how much importance was attached or how imminent they believed an attack to be.

Some may have know there was a major plane attack set for the morning of Sept 11, 2001. Others may have known something big was coming down the pike and who the likely perpetrators were.

Specifics are more difficult to ascertain as time passes.

Probably the one person mist capable of providing the most comprehensive answers is Dick Cheney.

I wonder if waterboarding would make him talk.

But that would contravene American policy on torture.

So we're still left with a lot of surmise.


Mike

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by RRconservative

 

You seem to misunderstand me.
I'm not saying obama is great or the second coming.

I'm saying your statement that dissent during the bush administration was considered patriotic is BLATANTLY FALSE.

I'm not a democrat or republican.

I can provide supporting evidence for what you just said with one single quote.

"Let us not tolerate outlandish conspiracy theories."

That doesn't sound like someone who supports dissent or even condones it now does it.

You made a very good point there.

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by poet1b

... that GW and Cheney allowed terrorists to blow up major targets in two U.S. cities in a supposed attack that we very preventable. Not one interceptor was scrambled until long after the incident. It was incompetence on an unprecedented scale.

The story still to be clarified on 9/11 is who told what to whom. Among the intelligence agencies the FBI withheld information from the CIA and vice versa. The White House was kept apprised but we don't know how much importance was attached or how imminent they believed an attack to be.

Some may have know there was a major plane attack set for the morning of Sept 11, 2001. Others may have known something big was coming down the pike and who the likely perpetrators were.

Specifics are more difficult to ascertain as time passes.

Probably the one person mist capable of providing the most comprehensive answers is Dick Cheney.

I wonder if waterboarding would make him talk.

But that would contravene American policy on torture.

So we're still left with a lot of surmise.


Mike

In a televised interview Russian president Vladimir Putin stated he personally warned the state department that an attack was planned in the near future. He said he done this in August 2001. So they did have information from the president of a foreign government with as much resources available to him as we have. Obviously it would appear he has more.

WHAT PLANET DO YOU PEOPLE LIVE ON???

reply to post by Wideawake08


Planet Earth, which is just across the border from the State of Denial.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

I think the extremists on both sides of the aisle are pretty much the same, but they work in difference ways, both undermining the middle class. However, I also think the moderates are very different from the extremists, and probably work for a different group amongst the PTB. Cheney is very far right, and while GW is religiously, I honestly think he is more moderate than Cheney, but was in over his head. I thought Obama was far left, but since taking office he has moved to the middle, and so I have became a fan.