FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Cheney hits a new low, Wilkerson speaks more truth





handfleisch
Ex-VP Dick Cheney has broken the tradition of letting a newly-elected White House get to business by attempting to undermine Obama -- and is encouraging the extremists in society at the same time.

Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell and was brave and honest enough to expose the WMD scare as "a hoax on the American people", is now spreading the truth about Gitmo and Cheney:

Quote:
...former Vice President Cheney gave an interview from his home in McLean, Virginia. The interview was almost mystifying in its twisted logic and terrifying in its fear-mongering.

As to twisted logic: "Cheney said at least 61 of the inmates who were released from Guantanamo (sic) during the Bush administration...have gone back into the business of being terrorists." So, the fact that the Bush administration was so incompetent that it released 61 terrorists, is a valid criticism of the Obama administration? Or was this supposed to be an indication of what percentage of the still-detained men would likely turn to terrorism if released in future? Or was this a revelation that men kept in detention such as those at GITMO--even innocent men--would become terrorists if released because of the harsh treatment meted out to them at GITMO? Seven years in jail as an innocent man might do that for me. Hard to tell.

As for the fear-mongering: "When we get people who are more interested in reading the rights to an Al Qaeda (sic) terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry," Cheney said. Who in the Obama administration has insisted on reading any al-Qa'ida terrorist his rights? More to the point, who in that administration is not interested in protecting the United States--a clear implication of Cheney's remarks.

But far worse is the unmistakable stoking of the 20 million listeners of Rush Limbaugh, half of whom we could label, judiciously, as half-baked nuts. Such remarks as those of the former vice president's are like waving a red flag in front of an incensed bull. And Cheney of course knows that.

Cheney went on to say in his McLean interview that "Protecting the country's security is a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business. These are evil people and we are not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek." I have to agree but the other way around. Cheney and his like are the evil people and we certainly are not going to prevail in the struggle with radical religion if we listen to people such as he.

When--and if--the truths about the detainees at Guantanamo Bay will be revealed in the way they should be, or Congress will step up and shoulder some of the blame, or the new Obama administration will have the courage to follow through substantially on its campaign promises with respect to GITMO, torture and the like, remains indeed to be seen.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/some_truths_abo/#more

Maddow comment
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/rachel_maddow_a/
deanhills
I see, so anyone of the former Government who has a public opinion is undermining Obama but it is OK for Obama to "undermine" Bush? All you have to do is to pick through your thread on "Congratulations Obama" and you see numerous instances of Obama public references to the Bush Government in the spirit of "Obama is doing it better now".
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
I see, so anyone of the former Government who has a public opinion is undermining Obama but it is OK for Obama to "undermine" Bush? All you have to do is to pick through your thread on "Congratulations Obama" and you see numerous instances of Obama public references to the Bush Government in the spirit of "Obama is doing it better now".


You realize you are spouting nonsense again, don't you?
deanhills
I don't mind "constructive" criticism Handfleisch Smile But if you wish to criticize, you should do so with substance and back your statement up with a discussion.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
I don't mind "constructive" criticism Handfleisch Smile But if you wish to criticize, you should do so with substance and back your statement up with a discussion.

Do you not have an inkling of an idea why the tradition of previous residents of the White House not interfering in new admins by making derisive public comments might be a little bit different than Obama criticizing Bush before Obama was president? it's another of your overabundant posts that seem to be without thought or even reading of the articles under discussion.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I don't mind "constructive" criticism Handfleisch Smile But if you wish to criticize, you should do so with substance and back your statement up with a discussion.

Do you not have an inkling of an idea why the tradition of previous residents of the White House not interfering in new admins by making derisive public comments might be a little bit different than Obama criticizing Bush before Obama was president? it's another of your overabundant posts that seem to be without thought or even reading of the articles under discussion.
With respect Handfleisch (and I sincerely mean respect), if you look at my original statement I was referring to Obama's remarks (about Busch) AFTER Obama became President, not before. The remarks made about Busch before Obama became President obviously deserves a "nonsense", but the ones afterwards are pretty much on the same level as what you accused Cheney's to be.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I don't mind "constructive" criticism Handfleisch Smile But if you wish to criticize, you should do so with substance and back your statement up with a discussion.

Do you not have an inkling of an idea why the tradition of previous residents of the White House not interfering in new admins by making derisive public comments might be a little bit different than Obama criticizing Bush before Obama was president? it's another of your overabundant posts that seem to be without thought or even reading of the articles under discussion.
With respect Handfleisch (and I sincerely mean respect), if you look at my original statement I was referring to Obama's remarks (about Busch) AFTER Obama became President, not before. The remarks made about Busch before Obama became President obviously deserves a "nonsense", but the ones afterwards are pretty much on the same level as what you accused Cheney's to be.


It's still total nonsense. How could Obama possibly not refer to the previous admin since he is making lots of changes in things that admin did? And it is still totally not comparable at all -- there is no tradition of a new admin not criticizing the old (again, how could there be?) How could this be undermining anyone's efforts since the Bush admin is gone and there are no efforts to undermine?

You have succeeded in totally distracting from the topic and doomed any discussion. You are either a genius, or the opposite. By the way you could at least try to spell "Bush" right.
Jinx
Last I checked we still have freedom of speech in this country which means that anyone is free to criticize anyone else - ex-VP or not.
handfleisch
Obama has responded to Cheney on 60 Minutes with common sense and honesty.

VIDEO http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/7646/26852
Quote:

"I fundamentally disagree with Dick Cheney. Not surprisingly. You know, I think that Vice President Cheney has been at the head of a movement whose notion is somehow that we can't reconcile our core values, our Constitution, our belief that we don't torture, with our national security interests. I think he's drawing the wrong lesson from history," Obama said.

"The facts don't bear him out. I think he is, that attitude, that philosophy has done incredible damage to our image and position in the world. I mean, the fact of the matter is after all these years how many convictions actually came out of Guantanamo? How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? It hasn't made us safer. What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment. Which means that there is constant effective recruitment of Arab fighters and Muslim fighters against U.S. interests all around the world," he added.

"Some of it being organized by a few people who were released from Guantanamo," Kroft pointed out.

"Well, there is no doubt that we have not done a particularly effective job in sorting through who are truly dangerous individuals that we've got to make sure are not a threat to us, who are folks that we just swept up. The whole premise of Guantanamo promoted by Vice President Cheney was that somehow the American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists. I fundamentally disagree with that. Now, do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not," Obama said.

Asked what should be done with these people, Obama said, "Well, I think we're gonna have to figure out a mechanism to make sure that they not released and do us harm. But do so in a way that is consistent with both our traditions, sense of due process, international law. But this is the legacy that's been left behind. And, you know, I'm surprised that the vice president is eager to defend a legacy that was unsustainable. Let's assume that we didn't change these practices. How long are we gonna go? Are we gonna just keep on going until you know, the entire Muslim world and Arab world despises us? Do we think that's really gonna make us safer? I don't know a lot of thoughtful thinkers, liberal or conservative, who think that that was the right approach."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/18/60minutes/main4873938_page4.shtml
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
It's still total nonsense. How could Obama possibly not refer to the previous admin since he is making lots of changes in things that admin did? And it is still totally not comparable at all -- there is no tradition of a new admin not criticizing the old (again, how could there be?) How could this be undermining anyone's efforts since the Bush admin is gone and there are no efforts to undermine?

Of course it is comparable. Surely if Bush and Cheney are made into bad guys of the previous administration they have the right to defend themselves, and the right to refer to the previous administration when they do that as much as Obama has the right to refer to Bush when he makes changes. To be truthful though for the average intelligent person (I do not necessarily include myself in this category) when Cheney refers to the new administration the way he does and Obama refers to the "improvements" he has made to the Bush administration, it does not impress at all. As you correctly pointed out there is a new administration in place, and they have to act in their own right without referring to anyone else but themselves.

handfleisch wrote:
You have succeeded in totally distracting from the topic and doomed any discussion. You are either a genius, or the opposite. By the way you could at least try to spell "Bush" right.
Regarding Bush typo: come off it, one typo, do you want me to nit-pick through some of your postings that must obviously have been written late at night? Regarding distracting from the topic, I'm not aware I went off topic. I responded to your opening statement in your lead posting of this thread:
Quote:
Ex-VP Dick Cheney has broken the tradition of letting a newly-elected White House get to business by attempting to undermine Obama -- and is encouraging the extremists in society at the same time.
handfleisch
Pretty funny.

Quote:
Go back into hiding, GOP begs Dick Cheney
By Molly K. Hooper
Posted: 03/23/09 08:10 PM [ET]
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/go-back-into-hiding-gop-begs-dick-cheney--please-2009-03-23.html

Congressional Republicans are telling Dick Cheney to go back to his undisclosed location and leave them alone to rebuild the Republican Party without his input.

Displeased with the former vice-president's recent media appearances, Republican lawmakers say he's hurting GOP efforts to reinvent itself after back-to-back electoral drubbings.


The veep, who showed a penchant for secrecy during eight years in the White House,has popped up in media interviews to defend the Bush-Cheney record while suggesting that the country is not as safe under President Obama.

Rep. John Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) said, “He became so unpopular while he was in the White House that it would probably be better for us politically if he wouldn’t be so public...But he has the right to speak out since he’s a private citizen.”

Another House Republican lawmaker who requested anonymity said he wasn’t surprised that Cheney has strongly criticized Obama early in his term, but argued that it’s not helping the GOP cause.

The legislator said Cheney, whose approval ratings were lower than President Bush’s during the last Congress, didn’t think through the political implications of going after Obama.

Cheney did “House Republicans no favors,” the lawmaker said, adding, “I could never understand him anyway.

Cheney’s office declined to comment for this article.

Potential Illinois Senate hopeful Rep. Mark Kirk (R) told The Hill that Cheney would better shape his legacy by writing a book.

“Tending a legacy is best done in a memoir,” Kirk said. “I would just encourage everybody who has left office to follow the tradition of the Founding Fathers — to write your memoirs, but to refrain from [criticizing].”

Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), who is running for governor, suggested that past leaders should not be seeking the spotlight at a time when the party is rebuilding and redefining itself, after “hitting bottom” in the devastating losses last November.


“Interpret it however you want to, but what I’m saying is: We should focus on the people that will lead us tomorrow, not the people who led us yesterday,” Wamp said. “With all due respect to former Vice President Cheney, he represents what’s behind us, not what’s ahead of us.


To the delight of some Democrats, Cheney, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele have attracted headlines in recent weeks.

Asked about Cheney’s criticisms of Obama, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs last week said, “I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy so they trotted out the next most popular member of the Republican cabal.”

Bush, who has announced he has already started to work on his memoirs, has not taken shots at Obama.

The 43rd president said last week that Obama “deserves my silence,” adding “it is essential that he be helped in office.”
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
The 43rd president said last week that Obama “deserves my silence,” adding “it is essential that he be helped in office.”


Well you must have a point, Cheney seems to be pretty much toast with the Republicans, not toeing the party line. Bush's strategy not to comment on Obama's doings is pretty much also McCain's and McCain's beautiful daughter's on Larry King Live. Guess silence is golden .... Smile
Related topics
And so it begins???
Do you make your own comics?
Aircraft hits New York City Building...
New Airline in the USA: Skybus
A New Low: Using Unwilling Mentally Disabled Women
So what movies did you hate?
New Year Resolutions: Do They Work?
Obama and Dems Hindering Recovery
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
Obama down in polls
Google Chrome - should we be worried about our privacy?
Man Flies Plane into Building
Tornado hits New York?
Did you trust astrology?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.