“Other than that, Mrs Lincoln; how did you ike the play?”
The controversial policies that the Bush administration adopted were adopted after and in response to 9/11. So in considering whether those policies made America safer or less safe, it makes sense to leave out 9/11 itself.
Maybe Obama will do better.
I was listening to a few highlights of the speech yesterday, and what struck me is the cold-blooded starkness to Cheney’s claims. His point is essentially, sure we torture, but we have to.
In my mind I was thinking that Cheney feels all nice and patriotic warmly wrapped up in his jingoistic rationalizations, while if the precise same speech were given by Joseph Stalin 65 years ago, it would have just been another piece of evidence to prove his malevolence.
Up until now I consistently thought, “Won’t he just shut up and go away” every time I heard Cheney criticizing Obama and defending the prior administration’s actions. But when I saw his pic in the paper this morning, I noticed that my reaction had changed considerably, along the lines of what has been observed above by Richard Parker and Equipoise.
I sincerely encourage Cheney keeps blatting on about the reighteousness of is admin’s actions and positions, because that will be the best thing to keep the spotlight on those actions and positions. I despise so much that they did in the purported support of what was right. I think Obama has enough on his plate, and is not terribly interested in dwelling upon the past. But the more Cheney talks, the more likely it is that the government and media will look deeper and deeper into the many ways our government lied to us over the past 8 years, the true motivations behind those lies and actions, and an accounting of who profited financially how much from those policies. Even on the most superficial of levels, could there be any more stark contrast between Cheney’s sneering mug and Obama’s appearance as a reasonable and thoughtful individual?
Also, I feel Cheney’s defenses appeal to no one other than the 30% or so of the truly committed, while turning off anyone more moderate who might be willing to give the prior admin the benefit of the doubt.
So keep on keeping your admin’s actions in the forefront, Dick. Keeping our focus on how bad things were under you guys will contribute greatly in recovering from your mismanagement and reducing the likelihood of recurrance in the future.
One nice thing about yesterday’s double speeches is that, at least according to NPR, Cheney had scheduled his speech for that date and venue and it was the Obama team that decided to schedule their own speech to counter Cheney’s.
NPR and some newspaper called it “the thrilla near the hilla”, a boxing reference.
Well, considering that the policies Clinton put into place that kept us from ever having an attack of that scope, or from foreign attack on US soil after 1993, or from foreign and domestic attack on US soil after 1995 were specifically abandoned by the Bush administration, it makes sense to consider whether abandoning those policies was causal in failing to prevent 9/11.
Perhaps, to avoid being a hypocrite, now would be a good time for you to point out that despite urgent desires on the part of terrorists around the world, there were NO SUCCESSFUL ATTACKS WHATSOEVER on the American mainland between February 26, 1993 to the end of the administration’s term on January 20, 2001.
Belatedly, good job, Mr. Clinton! Good job, Mr. Gore!
Thank you!
Come on Starving Artist, give Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore this credit they so rightly deserve. You can do it.
Except for the federal building in Oklahoma City, the Olympic Park bombing, and the Benjamin Smith murders, to name a few successful terrorist attacks on the American mainland. 
Oh yeah, which foreign country were those perpetrators from?
BTW, big surprise Cheney’s speech was mostly lies.
I do credit the Bush Admin for protecting us from the Flying Monkeys from Mars invasion. Yup, not one flying monkey attack while he was in office…
You’re just as dead from a domestic terrorist attack as you are from a foreign one.
Cheney has rocked for a long, long time,
Now it’s time for him to pass the torch.
He has songs of wildebeests and Gitmo,
He has soared on the wings of Al Qaeda.
It’s time to pass the torch,
You’re too old to rock, no more rockin’ for you!
We’re takin’ you to a home,
But we will sing a song about you.
And we will make sure that you’re very well taken care of.
You’ll tell us secrets that you’ve learned. Raow!
Your sauce will mix with ours,
And we’ll make a good goulash baby.
Cheney, time to go!
You must give your cape and scepter to Barry.
And a smaller one for JB.
Go! Go! Cheney! Cheney!
I see your point, I mean what about all those people who choked on peach pit while Clinton was in office. that really is as relevant as your point.
Give me a fucking break. I criticized the fuckers, and I will continue to see them as I see fit - a pack of lying, cowardly, two faced, manipulative mother fuckers. The whole lot of them. These bastards wanted to be some sort of warlords. These same tough guys were fucking cowards during Viet Nam, when it should have been their turn in the barrel. Then they had the gall to question the loyalty of anyone (including veterans who Had been “over there” of being disloyal and cowardly. And, whenever it didn’t go according to their plan, it was always someone else’s fault, or the “I didn’t know” crap. When that didn’t work, they hung someone - anyone else out to dry, or discredited them, or flat out lied.
These were the worst collection of scumbags we ever had in power at any one time.
And Misters Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Keenedy and Eisenhower. We didn’t have any major cities attacked during their temrs either.
OK, to steal a very good point from mister Jesse Ventura, why don’t we torture them too? There are bad bad guys in our jails, they may be planning to do bad bad things too. Why not torture them all?? And how about ALL foreigners? What could they be up to? Better torture them.
I suspect that both SA and Capt. A would be OK with that.
I just hope Professor van Helsing catches him soon.
Because, first, torture is both unconstitutional (and violates the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, of which we’re a signatory, and which we should probably go ahead and ratify)
Secondly, under most situations, torture isn’t the best way to get information. There are a lot of other interrogation techniques that are both more effective and more humane.
Thirdly, torture, in addition to having negative psychological effects on the tortured, tends to have negative psychological effects on the torturer.
Fourthly, I don’t want to live in a society where torture is commonly practiced. It leads to a general cheapening of human dignity, and it makes it more likely there will be other erosions of rights.
I’m not saying that Dick Cheney’s speech wasn’t a load of crap. I’m just saying that the statement that there weren’t any terrorist attacks on the American mainland between February 26, 1993 to January 20, 2001 is an incorrect statment.
From what you just wrote, I can’t find a whole lot to disagree with. We both agree the things Cheney was trying to defend are wrong. But as to his pretense that he made us safer, I am just not prepared to accept that. I simply don’t believe it. If anything, I think his and his White House’s policies in the long run will make us less safe. We’ve made a lot of new enemies. They may be more dangerous. They will be not just fighting for religious and political reasons, but for simple revenge. They will not be so willing to surrender, they will see how we treat our prisoners and will be more likely to fight to the death. I don’t think their being in office caused attacks to stop at all. They are claiming credit for something that they really had no effect on.
By the way, where is the Evil Genius, Bin laden? - directing this question to everyone/anyone. Never found him, did we? I wonder why. Maybe he wasn’t supposed to get caught. Maybe it was more politically useful to have a boogie man handy.