EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 21, 2009 13:29:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 21, 2009 14:31:27 GMT -5
One speech was given by a President and other by a former Vice President who recommended himself for the job. Perhaps that says enough.
I don't pretend to like Dick Cheney or the war he helped design under empirically incorrect (and, possibly, deliberately manufactured) pretenses, but I think the chorus in favor of him retiring from the stump is growing.
I should mention that there was a time where he boldly pronounced that criticism of the Commander in Chief during a time of war invited the terrorists to attack. I wonder if he still believes that or whether he never believed it even when he said it.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,666
|
Post by guru on May 21, 2009 14:45:54 GMT -5
Substantively, Cheney's speech was pretty compelling. It is remarkable how much Obama is slowly morphing into Bush when it comes to terrorism - just wonder when or if there will be a tipping point among liberals when they finally realize he is turning coat on some of the promises he made during the campaign.
However, the problem with Cheney's speech is that Cheney is the one who delivered it. So no one will listen to it anyway.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 21, 2009 15:32:53 GMT -5
From TWS: The newest fad to hit the Interwebs: Cheneyku!And Cheneyku on Twitter. Add your own I love/hate Dick Cheney haiku today, kids!! I thought TC, if no one else, would appreciate it. ;D ;D ;D |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on May 21, 2009 16:45:28 GMT -5
The fact that Dick Cheney is still claiming an al Qaeda-Iraq link is all you need to know about his speech.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 21, 2009 19:05:26 GMT -5
The fact that Dick Cheney is still claiming an al Qaeda-Iraq link is all you need to know about his speech. It's just possible Cheney has some intel info you don't have. Overall, I thought Obama did a very good job of identifying the five categories of prisoners at GITMO and how each would be handled - with the exception with the 5th category which he described as "..detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people". He didn't give a clue as to how to handle them nor did he say, even approximately, what percentage of the detainees fall into that category. His overall speech was pretty convincing but it's about time he stopped blaming every problem he is encountering on Bush. It's getting old. As for Cheney, I thought he was very convincing throughout but I also noted his tying Iraq to Al Queda. He could easily have left that out without hurting his message. I thought he was very effective in giving the justification for the EITs on only 3 detainees and his referencing that Obama had redacted the positive parts of what he released. Also, look out. According to the CNN poll, Cheney's poll numbers are going up - 8 points since January, though he's still at 37%. Bush's numbers have also gone up a bit (6 points, I think). |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 21, 2009 19:22:44 GMT -5
Also, look out. According to the CNN poll, Cheney's poll numbers are going up - 8 points since January, though he's still at 37%. Only 14 points below Elliot Spitzer. |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on May 21, 2009 19:37:28 GMT -5
Also, look out. According to the CNN poll, Cheney's poll numbers are going up - 8 points since January, though he's still at 37%. Only 14 points below Elliot Spitzer. Yeah but the comparison point for people w/ Elliot Spitzer is the strange version of Mr. Magoo running one of the most important states in the country. Cheney and Bush's competition is one of the most popular presidents in history. But this always happens. Months and years out of office, the numbers always improve. It doesn't change the fact that, while in their respective positions, they were one of the most loathed pairs in history. I was thinking last night about what it would have been if Cheney was at the top of that ticket. I know it never ever would have happened, but just a "What if." Because for all of the bad policy of the last 8 years, I think it was all made worse by the fact that it was delivered/presented by a man who looked confused by shoelaces. I can't help but wonder how the nation would have responded to everything if it was a clearly intelligent, crafty, experienced political figure who did the same things. Oh, and evil. He's almost certainly evil. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 21, 2009 21:01:19 GMT -5
Yeah but the comparison point for people w/ Elliot Spitzer is the strange version of Mr. Magoo running one of the most important states in the country. Cheney and Bush's competition is one of the most popular presidents in history. But this always happens. Months and years out of office, the numbers always improve. It doesn't change the fact that, while in their respective positions, they were one of the most loathed pairs in history. I was thinking last night about what it would have been if Cheney was at the top of that ticket. I know it never ever would have happened, but just a "What if." Because for all of the bad policy of the last 8 years, I think it was all made worse by the fact that it was delivered/presented by a man who looked confused by shoelaces. I can't help but wonder how the nation would have responded to everything if it was a clearly intelligent, crafty, experienced political figure who did the same things. Oh, and evil. He's almost certainly evil. I mention Spitzer because his career as an elected official is over - as is Cheney's. I'd be willing to bet Rod Blagojevich's numbers are up since January too, but like a cow's opinion, the point of these numbers is moo. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 21, 2009 23:44:52 GMT -5
Only 14 points below Elliot Spitzer. I can't help but wonder how the nation would have responded to everything if it was a clearly intelligent, crafty, experienced political figure who did the same things. Without taking a stance on Obama as an "intelligent, crafty, experienced political figure," I'd point out that's what we're getting. After all, Obama seems to be keeping a lot of the Bush policies that he denounced in the past. Oh sure, he's announced "huge" changes that are, in most respects, minor. However, his administration has followed a similar path on: wiretapping and intercepting emails, the military tribunals, using the Patriot Act, a surge in Afghanistan, backing off his position on the withdrawal in Iraq, denying habeas corpus to prisoners in foreign prisons, refusing to turn over state secret documents, rendition, and now Gitmo. Maybe Bush/Cheney was on to something. |
|
sead43
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 796
|
Post by sead43 on May 22, 2009 0:29:51 GMT -5
One thing about Cheney's speech that stuck with me was his assertion that the Obama administration redacted the parts of the EIT memos that actually describe the information that was obtained, which he says was information that led directly to terrorist plots against the US being foiled. If this is true, for what reason would the Obama administration leave those parts out? If this is all about transparency and “letting the American people judge,” why only reveal part of the story? Surely most of the information that was obtained cannot be any more "sensitive" or threatening to national security than revealing the methods used to get it was.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 22, 2009 0:33:04 GMT -5
KC, your comment is well-taken and timely, given David Brooks' editorial linked here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/opinion/22brooks.html?ref=opinion).
I never thought Obama could correct our foreign policy or address holdover issues in one year, and, to an extent, I don't give a hoot about some of the matters you mention - rendition among them. In other cases, like the Patriot Act, I can appreciate that you simply can't dump a bottle of white-out on it and start anew, so it makes sense to work with what you believe is useful/effective.
My sense is also that there has been some prioritization here, even if the apparent pace of action generally by the Obama administration seems dizzying. I suspect he found it easier to work with the Bush foreign policy framework than the economic framework and, to the extent he could only focus on changing one, he would focus on the economy.
There are some foreign policy areas, however, where the contrast with Bush could not be more clear. One area is engagement/internationalism. Obama, Biden, and Clinton have all hit the pavement, and it seems like one of them is overseas at all times. If they're not overseas, they are hosting all manner of heads of state. Bush rarely left DC/TX/MD especially during his later years except for pro-forma summits and the like and did not seem too interested in bilateral meetings, for better or for worse.
Perhaps this gets at the style/repackaging issue mentioned by Brooks. This approach stands to reason and has been noticed by more than a few academics. It is very difficult to come up with a post-World War II change of presidency that simply produced a reversal of major foreign policy. It makes all the more sense (and may help to explain the lack of substantive redirection in US foreign policy) when you consider that the unipolar order may be waning.
Perhaps Carter/Reagan comes close, but there you might argue that Reagan's foreign policy focused on different issues entirely than Carter's, arising from the collapse of detente and the need to shift from some of the side-shows that bogged down Carter. Stylistically, the contrast between Carter and Reagan could not be clearer.
Give Obama another year or two, and I think you will see some more significant substantive changes from the Bush foreign policy (i.e. something more than the pro forma changes that occur on the Mexico City policy in every change of administration). I suspect Obama will use his internationalist approach to get something done on Kyoto or to find a suitable cap and trade system. You might see some olive branches extended to the UN on certain issues. Maybe he'll engage to a greater extent on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 22, 2009 12:34:43 GMT -5
One thing about Cheney's speech that stuck with me was his assertion that the Obama administration redacted the parts of the EIT memos that actually describe the information that was obtained, which he says was information that led directly to terrorist plots against the US being foiled. If this is true, for what reason would the Obama administration leave those parts out? If this is all about transparency and “letting the American people judge,” why only reveal part of the story? Surely most of the information that was obtained cannot be any more "sensitive" or threatening to national security than revealing the methods used to get it was. Sead, you questioned why Obama would redact positive information. If you can't answer that yourself, I can't help. |
|
sead43
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 796
|
Post by sead43 on May 22, 2009 13:08:27 GMT -5
One thing about Cheney's speech that stuck with me was his assertion that the Obama administration redacted the parts of the EIT memos that actually describe the information that was obtained, which he says was information that led directly to terrorist plots against the US being foiled. If this is true, for what reason would the Obama administration leave those parts out? If this is all about transparency and “letting the American people judge,” why only reveal part of the story? Surely most of the information that was obtained cannot be any more "sensitive" or threatening to national security than revealing the methods used to get it was. Sead, you questioned why Obama would redact positive information. If you can't answer that yourself, I can't help. haha, i meant is there any reason BESIDES not wanting to make EITs seems effective so that his decision to ban them would get more support. as in, is there any legitimate, national security reason to withhold this information, as a lot of his speech promised there would need to be for any information to be withheld from now on?? Just to throw it out there, I am generally an Obama fan, at least so far. But in this particular instance he sounds very hypocritical. And it is too bad Cheney is the one bringing it up, because no one's going to listen because he's the one saying it. By the way, I found this gem from the transcript of Gibbs' briefing yesterday of him trying to address this very issue. ---QUOTE--- Q [VP Cheney] again today raised the issue of the CIA memos that he says contain proof positive that the harsh interrogation techniques saved lives and prevented attacks. Is there any chance the President, on his own authority, will make those memos public? MR. GIBBS: Well, Mark, as I understand the series of facts, the Vice President asked the Central Intelligence Agency under an order of mandatory declassification to declassify these memos. The Central Intelligence Agency wrote back to the Vice President that the order of classification which he asked for was precluded under an executive order updated in the administration of President George W. Bush, which, again, precluded that release if something was involved in -- if those documents were involved in -- Q Litigation. MR. GIBBS: -- FOIA ligation. Then that's what -- according to the CIA, that's what they're involved. Obviously if -- I'm certain that if the Vice President wants to make a formal request to the CIA based on a different manner of declassification, the Constitution affords him that right, as well. Q Do you not want them released? MR. GIBBS: I don't know that -- that's, again, that's a determination that the CIA would make, and he's certainly welcome to submit that -- make a submission for that declassification. [...] Q A follow-up on Mark's question, does the President agree or disagree with the Vice President's contention that he has the authority to declassify the CIA memos? Does he agree with that? MR. GIBBS: I think the government obviously has the ability to -- but I don't want to be flip -- Q Cheney says the President, if he wanted to, could declassify -- MR. GIBBS: I don't want to be flip on this, but I -- Q I just want to make sure that the President -- do you agree with that or disagree with that? MR. GIBBS: That the government has the ability? Q The President has the sole executive authority, if he chose to, to declassify those memos and make them public, redacted -- MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the original executive authority would be at the CIA. That's the determination that was made on his first request and, again, Major, we were -- as I understand it, the CIA was very cognizant of the process by which it was asked and the process by which it went through, that that was treated -- Q Right, and the Vice President acknowledged that process in his speech, then he said, the President has the authority to overrule that. I'm asking if you agree or disagree with that. MR. GIBBS: I would suggest that if there's a formal submission by the Vice President for renewed declassification based on another method -- Q Who would he make it to? The President? MR. GIBBS: No, well, I think he'd send the letter to the same place he sent it in -- many weeks ago to the CIA. Q But do you agree with his contention the President, if he so chose, could declassify these memos? MR. GIBBS: I think the President has declassification powers, yes. Q Okay. MR. GIBBS: But I don't -- Q But at this point he has no intention of exercising those for these memos. MR. GIBBS: I'd have to ask him. Q Please do. MR. GIBBS: Again, I think that there's -- the Vice President has used the submission process -- again, I'm not trying to be flip here, but I don't want to -- I guess it's the short answer of saying that I think the CIA would probably want -- Q What Mark and I are getting at is the Vice President is alleging that the President is intentionally depriving the country of a certain amount of facts it could evaluate on its own. MR. GIBBS: That I would disagree with. That I would disagree with because, again, the process was gone through -- the Vice President understands the declassification of very sensitive classified information. That's why he made the -- I assume the reason that he made that request originally was -- through that process was done so because he understood how that process worked. Q Right. But we've asked, many of us here, in the last couple of weeks, does the President have any intention of declassifying these. And I guess renewing that -- MR. GIBBS: I will certainly -- Q -- general request, since you've acknowledged he has the power to do so? MR. GIBBS: I will check. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 22, 2009 14:13:29 GMT -5
Interesting defensive posture and evasion from Mr. Gibbs. His evasions answered the question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2009 12:26:52 GMT -5
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Jun 2, 2009 14:21:56 GMT -5
Only 14 points below Elliot Spitzer. Yeah but the comparison point for people w/ Elliot Spitzer is the strange version of Mr. Magoo running one of the most important states in the country. Cheney and Bush's competition is one of the most popular presidents in history. But this always happens. Months and years out of office, the numbers always improve. It doesn't change the fact that, while in their respective positions, they were one of the most loathed pairs in history. I was thinking last night about what it would have been if Cheney was at the top of that ticket. I know it never ever would have happened, but just a "What if." Because for all of the bad policy of the last 8 years, I think it was all made worse by the fact that it was delivered/presented by a man who looked confused by shoelaces. I can't help but wonder how the nation would have responded to everything if it was a clearly intelligent, crafty, experienced political figure who did the same things. Oh, and evil. He's almost certainly evil. You didn't just proclaim a guy who has been president for 130 days to be "one of the most popular presidents in history" did you? I guess if Mt St. Marys goes up on Gtown this year 2-0 at the start of the game it can be said that they are in the midst of one of the great upsets in sports history. |
|
mchoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 377
|
Post by mchoya on Jun 2, 2009 14:32:15 GMT -5
Well, Bush was 90% after 9/11, so he clearly was the most popular president in the history of presidents.
|
|
