# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  Obama vs Cheney

## rbaker

Whose speech on May 21, 2009, Security did you agree with more:

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Not surprisingly, I personally agreed more with Dick Cheney's point of view, but I believe President Obama is sincere in his opinion (just sincerely wrong).

In his enthusiasm to "right" what he perceives as an atrocity committed by the former administration, he has sort of painted himself in a corner.  

For me, it comes down to these two statements...
*President Obama-*  "The prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it... because the terrorists can only succeed if they swell their ranks and alienate America from our allies, and they will never be able to do that if we stay true to who we are."

What a great sentiment (in all sincerity, I really wish the only requirement for defeating terrorism was being generous and diplomatic in our foreign relations).  However, this is not the reality of the situation.  We are involved in an "absolute conflict" with terrorists- this is different from a "war."  Other than our annihilation, there is nothing the terrorists "want" from us- therefore, there is nothing we can "give them" to make them go away (pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan isn't going to mollify terrorists, neither is closing Guatanamo).  As Cheney stated in his speech: _"It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values       we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so."_  I can't put it any better.

*Former VP Cheney* "But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned one lead that goes unpursued can bring on catastrophe -- it's no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance."

Not a popular message (and I'm sure there are those here who would say its a erroneous assumption).  I admit the course President Obama wants to take sounds nicer and seems more in keeping with our ideals.  However unpalatable Cheney's message might be, it has the misfortune of being correct.

*President Obama*  "...and that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people."

Unfortunately, the steps President Obama wants to take will not better protect the American people (although it might make Americans and foreign governments "feel better")- this is why his own party is attempting to restrain the President's actions.

*Former VP Cheney*  "The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it's       tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security."

Yeah, what he said...

To be clear, am I happy the US government feels the need to detain 558 people indefinitely?  No.  However, neither do I feel that these individuals are being detained without cause- partially because we can see the results of releasing them.  For example, in 2003 lawyers petitioned (and were granted) the release of a Guantanamo detainee named Abdallah Saleh Ali Al Ajmi.  In 2008, seven people lost their lives when Al Ajmi carried out a suicide bombing.

This isn't like the aftermath of Pearl Harbor (when the US detained innocent people- many Americans- who happened to be of Japanese descent).  In this case, the detainees are people who have actively participated in or assisted with terrorist activities against the United States.  Many have no reservations in stating they would "return to the fight" if released.  Every time I fly, travel to a crowded venue, or go to work I am safer because they are in custody- and that's my take.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

Did you all see where, under Obama, they just foiled another plot? He's doing his best to protect us too.Why would anyone believe Cheney when he has many provable errors and omissions in his speech. Just like when , at OJ's trial, Mark Furman was shown to have lied once so his entire testimony was thrown out. So should Cheney's diatribe be dismissed.
So I guess you could say So Far, It's Even - One attack on American soil allowed by each party.  And in the intervening years, both parties did an admirable job of preventing further major attacks.

----------


## KStraker

....claymation style!

----------


## braheem24

> . Just like when , at OJ's trial, Mark Furman was shown to have lied once so his entire testimony was thrown out. So should Cheney's diatribe be dismissed.


Thrown out?  They gave him a job.

http://gopexposed.blogspot.com/2005/...r-racists.html

----------


## k12311997

> Thrown out? They gave him a job.
> 
> http://gopexposed.blogspot.com/2005/...r-racists.html


Braheem where is that spirit of forgivness, people can change.

I'll see your TV comentator and raise you a democratic senator.



Ex-Klansman Robert Byrd, the senior senator from West Virginia, casually used the phrase "white ******" twice on national TV this weekend. Enraged civil rights groups organized a protest campaign against Sen. Byrd and demanded that he undergo sensitivity training ... not. 
The ex-Klansman, you see, is a Democrat. Democrats can join hate groups and utter the ugliest racial slurs and get away with it because they are Democrats. They belong to the party of racial tolerance and understanding. They're paragons of virtue, and the rest of us are bigoted rubes.  ....

from
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=383

----------


## braheem24

I dont believe either one is ok, if the people of West Virginia believe that's the best they can do then it's thier choice.

Lying is a pre-requisit for politics, You know it, I know it and everyone running knows it.  I did however expect a little more from our news organizations especially if they call themselves conservative.

Maybe they're trying to be "progressive thinkers" like MSNBC  :Rolleyes:

----------


## k12311997

> I dont believe either one is ok, if the people of West Virginia believe that's the best they can do then it's thier choice.
> 
> Lying is a pre-requisit for politics, You know it, I know it and everyone running knows it. I did however expect a little more from our news organizations especially if they call themselves conservative.
> 
> Maybe they're trying to be "progressive thinkers" like MSNBC


I could be wrong, and frequently am.  Doesn't the Democratic party have any say?

----------


## braheem24

I would assume they would but since I'm not a Democrat, just a disgusted Republican I havent followed it. :o

----------


## fjpod

What I would like to know is where was Dick Cheney for the 8 years he was VP?  Now he speaks up?  He should crawl back into his undisclosed location.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> Braheem where is that spirit of forgivness, people can change.
> 
> I'll see your TV comentator and raise you a democratic senator.
> 
> 
> 
> Ex-Klansman Robert Byrd, the senior senator from West Virginia, casually used the phrase "white ******" twice on national TV this weekend. Enraged civil rights groups organized a protest campaign against Sen. Byrd and demanded that he undergo sensitivity training ... not. 
> The ex-Klansman, you see, is a Democrat. Democrats can join hate groups and utter the ugliest racial slurs and get away with it because they are Democrats. They belong to the party of racial tolerance and understanding. They're paragons of virtue, and the rest of us are bigoted rubes.  ....
> 
> ...


I see you finally understand! :D
Hmmm, Michelle Malkin - a real bastion of neutrality! NOT!!

And did you see the date on the article? 2001.
And did you check this?
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLI.../04/byrd.slur/
And in the spirit of forgiveness (which is not too popular among Repubs) he has changed. His Klan days were 50 years ago, unlike some current Repubs who are STILL Klansmen. David Duke sound familiar? And he was a leader in the Klan.
How many times have you heard Cheney apologize?

----------


## optical24/7

[QUOTE=DragonLensmanWV;297352]Did you all see where, under Obama, they just foiled another plot? QUOTE]


In all fairness, this cell was found out last summer (by an FBI informant). The bust happened recently when these people went forward with their plot ( under Obama's watch.) I don't think you can give him (that much) credit for this one.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

[QUOTE=optical24/7;297428]


> Did you all see where, under Obama, they just foiled another plot? QUOTE]
> 
> 
> In all fairness, this cell was found out last summer (by an FBI informant). The bust happened recently when these people went forward with their plot ( under Obama's watch.) I don't think you can give him (that much) credit for this one.



OK, fair enough. But you can't say he's sleeping on the job.

----------


## LilKim

I was perfectly happy with G. Bay as it was.  However, with its existence and documentation of what goes on in the prison made public, I think it's in the country's best interest to close it down....

.....and then open up another prison in secret.  Move detainees.  World forgets the whole incident ever happened.  The North Pole would be a good place.

----------


## For-Life

Has anyone thought that probably having a facility that harbours people who want to destroy the US right next to a 50 year old enemy who used to have nuclear weapons that could have bombed the US, more dangerous that high security facilities directly in the US?

----------


## fjpod

[QUOTE=optical24/7;297428]


> Did you all see where, under Obama, they just foiled another plot? QUOTE]
> 
> 
> In all fairness, this cell was found out last summer (by an FBI informant). The bust happened recently when these people went forward with their plot ( under Obama's watch.) I don't think you can give him (that much) credit for this one.


 I'm not so sure anybody should get credit for this bust.  These guys weren't terrorists.  One is a crack addict, another is a purse snatcher.  They have all been in jail for one petty thing or another.  They are a bunch of guys, angry at the system...Somebody walks up to them gives them money, offers to buy them great toys...they bite.  Chances are if the cops had penetrated a skin-head or neo-Nazi group, and offered them toys and money, they would have made a bust too.  

Sure they belong in jail, and our FBI and Police need to be actively vigilant...but terrorists?  No.

----------


## rbaker

> Has anyone thought that probably having a facility that harbours people who want to destroy the US right next to a 50 year old enemy who used to have nuclear weapons that could have bombed the US, more dangerous that high security facilities directly in the US?


There have never been nuclear weapons on Cuban soil. About the highest state of technology that the present day Cuba possesses is the ability to keep 1952 Studebakers running.

U.S. Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay has been around since 1903. If you recall the Cuban Missile Crisis and the 1994 utilities crisis you will realize that Cuba is as much threat to US national security as is the Yugoslavian girls volley ball team. About the biggest threat to US forces stationed there or we in the US is syphilis.

----------


## fjpod

So if Cuba is so lame, why don't we just go in there and "smother them with American kindness", and build up a trade partner right in our own backyard?  In comparison to what we have spent in Iraq to "build democraacy" (yeah right), a few meager dollars spent in Cuba could actually give us a return on investment.

----------


## rinselberg

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer suggests that on the topic of national security, the differences between the Bush-Cheney administration and the Obama administration are more in the way of rhetoric than of substance:


> If hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue, then the flip-flops on previously denounced antiterror measures are the homage that Barack Obama pays to George Bush. Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program.
> 
> The latest flip-flop is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an "enormous failure." Obama suspended them upon his swearing in. Now they're back.
> 
> Of course, Obama will never admit in word what he's doing in deed. As in his rhetorically brilliant national-security speech on Thursday claiming to have undone Bush's moral travesties, the military commissions flip-flop is accompanied by the usual Obama three-step: (a) excoriate the Bush policy, (b) ostentatiously unveil cosmetic changes, (c) adopt the Bush policy.





> The genius of democracy is that the rotation of power forces the opposition to come to its senses when it takes over. When the new guys, brought to power by popular will, then adopt the policies of the old guys, a national consensus is forged and a new legitimacy established.
> 
> That's happening before our eyes. The Bush policies in the war on terror won't have to await vindication by historians. Obama is doing it day by day. His denials mean nothing. Look at his deeds.


In other words, when it comes to national security, the distance separating the "new" Obama policies from the "old" Bush-Cheney policies is not much greater than the difference between the "new Coke" and "Coca-Cola Classic", for those who remember that far back. Or for those who remember even farther back, from The Who anthem Won't Get Fooled Again... "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

To read the Krauthammer column in its entirety:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

----------


## LilKim

I was watching a Bill Maher interview yesterday, and he made an interesting point:  The Republican party is fading away, and the Democratic party has risen to take its place, in the way of being corporate-sponsored, free speech inhibiting, etc.  This isn't to say that the Democrats embrace the Republican values, concerning abortion, religion and all that nonsense, just that they've taken their place as the dominant political party.  For the moment, this idea is holding true.  The GOP is floundering, having such a massive identity crisis, and seem unwilling or unable to make themselves relevant to the 21st century.  Eventually a third party (Independents, most likely) will come along, and take the Democrats' former stance as the underdog. 

So really, it isn't that surprising that the Democrats have learned from the best power-mongers, how to run this country into the ground.

Maher's jokes can be a little irritating, being so uber-leftist, but I tend to sympathize with his views for the most part.  Here's an interview with him...he talks about other things as well:  http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/sho...ef=videosearch

He elaborates on this at the 8:30 mark.  Not that I take Maher's word as golden, but at least he's entertaining :D

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

Look at some of the things Cheney has said in the past, nevermind he once said it was unpatriotic to criticize a sitting President during wartime.

"People are returning to work. Mortgage rates are low, and home ownership in this country is at an all-time high. The Bush tax cuts are working."

"A senator can be wrong for 20 years without consequence to the nation," said Cheney. "But a president always casts the deciding vote." What America needs in this time of peril, he argued, is "a president we can count on to get it right."


_While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.
(Now who's manically trying to bring down our Commander In Chief?)

And of course,

_"I had other priorities in the sixties than military service." on his five draft deferments, April 5, 1989

----------


## Chris Bowers

Im thinking that if you dont want Gitmo, Ill take over the lease.  President Castro has only cashed one of the rent checks and that was in 1959. Fidel and Raul probably wont be around much longer and maybe we will wake up and drop the old trade barriers and then Ill have a harbor, airfield, roads, and infrastructure.  Seriously, Gitmo does not embolden terrorism any more than My Lai emboldened the NVA. I agree with the statement that we have nothing to bargain with when it comes to terrorism. They just want us dead and that is their sole purpose for existence.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

So really, it isn't that surprising that the Democrats have learned from the best power-mongers, how to run this country into the ground.
There's an historical problem with this statement... namely, the relatively brief span in which the GOP enjoyed a majority in Congress (from the middle of the Clinton admins until midway through the Bush admin) was wedged between the current group of Democrats and the very tightly run Democrat-controlled Congresses of the past couple decades.   In recent history, Democrats have been in the majority most of the time in Congress.

The GOP is floundering, having such a massive identity crisis, and seem unwilling or unable to make themselves relevant to the 21st century. 
This statement illustrates my point above- switch the parties around and the same statement could have been applied in 2004 when Bush was re-elected.  The political parties of the US are quite entrenched and swap power back and forth rather routinely.  Been happening for quite a while- will probably happen for the foreseeable future.  In another couple election cycles, you may have the Democrats fumbling around in the dark again (and around and around we go).

This isn't to say that the Democrats embrace the Republican values, concerning abortion, religion and all that nonsense...
No, the Democrats have a whole list of nonesense to propogate on their own without borrowing from the Republicans.

In other words, when it comes to national security, the distance separating the "new" Obama policies from the "old" Bush-Cheney policies is not much greater than the difference between the "new Coke" and "Coca-Cola Classic", for those who remember that far back. Or for those who remember even farther back, from The Who anthem Won't Get Fooled Again... "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Bingo!  Give whoever wrote that a dollar (minus $0.37 for the government :^).  President Obama is faced with a dilemma common to most Presidents...  Its easy to criticize the way things are when you aren't responsible for them- its another thing once you roll up your sleeves and begin to run into the problems that contributed to making the current situation what it is.  Obama preached "change," so he has to come up with _something_ to change.  Rolling back federal bans on stem-cell and such are showy and easy to accomplish- figuring out what to do with 500+ dangerous individuals is another.

I know there are people who are full of hope that this fellow will be "different..."  Sorry to say it, but politicians are politicians (I used to be young and naive enough to believe they really were different- but experience shows the similarities far outweigh the differences).  Indeed, the only reason they sometimes appear to be different is because Republicans tend to downplay the faults of their own and exaggerate the faults of others- and vice versa (Pelosi is a great example of that- if there aren't enough faults to be found to create enough differentiation in the electorate's mind, just invent a few more).

"The more things change, the more they remain the same!"

----------


## LilKim

> So really, it isn't that surprising that the Democrats have learned from the best power-mongers, how to run this country into the ground.
> There's an historical problem with this statement... namely, the relatively brief span in which the GOP enjoyed a majority in Congress (from the middle of the Clinton admins until midway through the Bush admin) was wedged between the current group of Democrats and the very tightly run Democrat-controlled Congresses of the past couple decades.   In recent history, Democrats have been in the majority most of the time in Congress.


What I referring to in this statement wasn't so much our domestic policy (which BOTH parties are supremely guilty of screwing up--thank you thumb-sitting Congress Dems, any further up their behind and they should be able to taste the McDonald's $1 menu grease under their nails), but our international policy.  The Republicans have damaged our reputation abroad and their policies have fueled such hatred against us that the threat of terrorist attacks is greater than it ever has been.




> The GOP is floundering, having such a massive identity crisis, and seem unwilling or unable to make themselves relevant to the 21st century.This statement illustrates my point above- switch the parties around and the same statement could have been applied in 2004 when Bush was re-elected.  The political parties of the US are quite entrenched and swap power back and forth rather routinely.  Been happening for quite a while- will probably happen for the foreseeable future.  In another couple election cycles, you may have the Democrats fumbling around in the dark again (and around and around we go).


I agree with you, but I think that a fresh third party can and will step in and replace one or the other of the current dominant parties.




> This isn't to say that the Democrats embrace the Republican values, concerning abortion, religion and all that nonsense.
> No, the Democrats have a whole list of nonsense to propagate on their own without borrowing from the Republicans.


  True, I think both parties are equally ridiculous in some of their policies.  Gun control, anti-abortionists, this pointless debate over gay marriage (really, who cares?  Let them be as miserable as everyone else, LOL) I'm not a fan of the current welfare system, as it merely enables people to sit on their bum and breed.  It's very much an egalitarian world we live in, where merit does not matter, because everyone is "special" and "precious".

----------


## Pete Hanlin

LilKim,
Great post!
 
The Republicans have damaged our reputation abroad and their policies have fueled such hatred against us that the threat of terrorist attacks is greater than it ever has been.
I agree and disagree...  I agree the entry into the Iraq war was mishandled.  When our allies indicated they weren't game for a second round against Saddam, we should have said _"Thanks for the input"_ and gone ahead as we did.  Instead, the administration did a bunch of arm twisting which only served to offend our allies.

However, our particular enemies are going to come after us no matter what we do...  I do buy into the concept that fighting "over there" keeps the mess "over there."  After all, a terrorist who blows himself up in Iraq to thwart our military is one less terrorist who can blow himself up over here to disrupt our economy.  Perhaps that's putting it too black and white (after all, I would prefer having no terrorists blowing themselves up anywhere- but I don't believe that's an option).  Then again, I believed there actually _were_ WMD in Iraq before we invaded (at the very least, Saddam was not abiding by the cease fire agreement from his first spanking)!  Whether politicians like to admit it or not, most of them also thought there were weapons- and I don't buy into the "manufactured evidence by the Bush admin" theory (if the admin could doctor evidence to secure the invasion, surely they could have manufactured physical evidence after the invasion took place).  I'm actually surprised there haven't been more attacks on US soil since 9/11- perhaps we're keeping them busy enough "over there..."

I agree with you, but I think that a fresh third party can and will step in and replace one or the other of the current dominant parties.
I'm not saying a 3rd party wouldn't be a good idea- I think its a problem of finances.  The closest a third party has come to impacting national politics is '92 when Perot ran- and the result was the Clinton administration, not a 3rd party President (some would argue the outcome was positive... I'm ambivalent on that one).  The existing parties are quite entrenched, well funded, and have set up the system to basically guarantee their continued existence (the only thing campaign finance reform- which is a joke- really does is firm up the 2 party system).

True, I think both parties are equally ridiculous in some of their policies. Gun control, anti-abortionists, this pointless debate over gay marriage (really, who cares? Let them be as miserable as everyone else, LOL) I'm not a fan of the current welfare system, as it merely enables people to sit on their bum and breed. It's very much an egalitarian world we live in, where merit does not matter, because everyone is "special" and "precious".
Very well put!  Personally, I'm a fiscal conservative but couldn't really give a hoot about "social policy" (you're right, let everyone marry- it'll just be a _growth market_ for divorce lawyers).  I do have a problem with abortion (from the sense that _everyone_ has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- including a baby who hasn't been born), however, making abortion illegal would (and historically has) run into the same problem as prohibition.  No one is arguing that alcoholism isn't wrong (or at least a bad outcome), but- realistically speaking- you can't make alcohol illegal.

----------

