You are absolutely right - publicly criticizing the President is poison to democracy.
Any former VP who criticizes a President should be sent to prison. There can be no excuse for this nearly treasonous behavior. Anyone who engages in such should sent to Gitmo without delay.
Regards,
Shodan
You missed the part about terrorizing the public and so forth.
So they can send him right back again when Gitmo is closed?
Did I criticize the President? If my post seems critical of the President, it is because of wording. I am tired and probably shouldn’t post.
A cogent point well made. Or it would be if anyone has said any such thing. And no - Wring’s calling out of right-tard hypocrisy don’t count.
Jesus. Making straw-men out of imaginary straw. Sad and pathetic.
Gotta send him somewhere. Can’t be Scotland, since he doesn’t put sugar on his porridge.
Try reading for content, moron.
Regards,
Shodan
Cheney is just pissed because he wasn’t able to completely dismantle the Constitution in eight years, declare martial law and proclaim himself Emperor Penguin.
Try posting some.
Dick Cheney told the American people that Obama’s policies will likely cause a nuclear attack on the U.S. This is not honest criticism. It is fear mongering.
The push against the stimulus has been an organized right wing assault on the new President. The Heritage Foundation, right wing radio, the blogs, and pundits are all on message with the same talking points. Two weeks into Obama’s term, and the radical right is focused on undermining his success. The right has no interested in an honest policy debate. It is easier to deceive the public with misinformation, create confusion, and buy political influence. The Republicans keep pushing the same tired policies that have been tested and failed. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is how Albert Einstein defined insanity.
I am careful, or at least I try, not to overgeneralize. I know that all conservatives are not part of the right wing, but the Republicans have clearly decided to take the Party further to the right.
And they will never be back in power again until they take it further to the left.
Sometimes folly is its own punishment.
They might. Its certainly possible, because nothing but nothing is predictable in a democracy. Thats its wonder, its beauty, and its main fallibility.
9/11 drove us nuts. And a particular political party (not naming any names here, but rhymes with “douchbags”) exploited that absolutely to the hilt, and its taken us a long, long time to get past it.
In one day, GeeDub went from being a mildly unpopular and inept President to The Leader. He stood there and mouthed platitudes and postures of defiance, and suddenly he was a Man of Destiny.
When the people go nuts, democracy goes nuts. It happened, and it could happen again.
Not entirely relevant to this, but I thought it was pretty damn funny.
At a WPCF dinner, they evidently held a roast. Among many of the zingers was the following on Cheney:
Many other funny zingers as well (I loved the NY Gov one)
Actually, no, he didn’t.
But I am more interested in finding out if this is a general principle - no former VP should criticize a current President on matters relating to terrorism, or foreign policy - or is it merely the usual bleat signaling the latest Two Minute Hate?
On preview, fuck it - you’re just going to lie.
Regards,
Shodan
I have stated upthread that Cheney has the perfect right to say what he wants. Not law, nor “protocol” should stop him.
Given that, however, we are free to judge him on the content of what he says. If what he says makes him an evil, fearmongering fucker, we should judge him so and express the hope that:
(1) He would want to stop being an evil, fearmongering fucker
(2) Barring that, we can keep him and all other fearmongering fuckers away from positions of influence or authority.
He’s 68 years old. You can’t teach an old dick new tricks…
See, its stuff like this which is why you guys never win any elections.
From the article:
But he said he worried that “instead of sitting down and carefully evaluating the policies,” Obama officials are unwisely following “campaign rhetoric” and preparing to release terrorism suspects or afford them legal protections granted to more conventional defendants in crime cases.
The choice, he alleged, reflects a naive mindset among the new team in Washington: “The United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected. Sometimes, that requires us to take actions that generate controversy. I’m not at all sure that that’s what the Obama administration believes.”
Later in the article:
Cheney said “the ultimate threat to the country” is “a 9/11-type event where the terrorists are armed with something much more dangerous than an airline ticket and a box cutter – a nuclear weapon or a biological agent of some kind” that is deployed in the middle of an American city.
“That’s the one that would involve the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of people, and the one you have to spend a hell of a lot of time guarding against,” he said.
“I think there’s a high probability of such an attempt. Whether or not they can pull it off depends whether or not we keep in place policies that have allowed us to defeat all further attempts, since 9/11, to launch mass-casualty attacks against the United States.”
Cheney said:
Obama is following through on his promises and changing the policies that have been in place the last seven years to protect this country.
The greatest threat to this country is a nuclear or biological attack.
So how did Cheney not say that Obama’s policies are making the United States more likely to suffer a nuclear attack?
I didn’t quote Cheney in the previous post. I paraphrased. But I will quote Cheney now:
Cheney’s message is straight forward.
I didn’t write that criticism of the sitting President by a former VP should be discouraged or avoided as a matter of principle. I object to Cheney’s timing, motives, what he said, and his decision join the Republican campaign to aggressively oppose the stimulus. Although Cheney didn’t address the stimulus, his intent was to undermine the Obama administration and I maybe scare the public.
My post may have been angry but I don’t think it is hateful, Shodan. And everything I said is true.