Former VP Speech

[Godspeed]

I'm not usually one to pass on/send all the political stuff, but wanted to share this.... I found this to be one of the most powerful speeches I've heard in the past 5+ years (I know, not saying a whole hell of a lot, but still).

Really puts a lot of things into perspective (at least it did for me) about a lot of the current political debates going on about national security / Guantanamo Bay / Waterboarding etc.

It's a little lengthy, but if you've been following all of the criticism directed at the former Bush Administration, you might appreciate this (quite tactful) response.

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=5226709&referralPlaylistId=playlist

 

[mmx1]

Funny how you fail to mention the other major speech today, by the President. Transcripts for the time-impaired:
Obama Speech
Cheney Speech

Or, for the really time impaired, Exum's 2-line summary:
http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-obama-vs-cheney.html


Frankly, I prefer this analysis from Jack Goldsmith (in TNR, but he has Hoover Institution and Bush administration on his resume)
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1e733cac-c273-48e5-9140-80443ed1f5e2
Briefly put, the Obama administration has kept, altered, and repackaged the methods Bush put in place. But more importantly, he is realigning these methods in a sustainable fashion, in line with our values and laws, rather than Cheney's argument that dangerous times call for exceptional measures.

Cheney claims indignantly that there is no middle ground, no compromise when it comes to fighting terrorism, that his way is the right way. But there is no one "right" way to pursue this war, and the American people have a right to a say in how far they are willing to go and what lines we are willing to cross in the name of security.

Yes, 14% of released detainees have returned to "terrorism or militant activity", which includes association with terrorists. Not the blanket "conducted murderous attacks" as Cheney asserted. What of the other 86%? Too bad?

 

[Godspeed]

I didn't "FAIL" to mention anything. Relax.

The President did have a speech today, but it echoed his well publicized views on a lot of things that have been covered ad nauseum in the media for the past several weeks.

I posted the former Vice Presidents speech because it was very thinly covered in the news and provided a publically obscured "different" perspective.

No need to get your panties in a bunch, brah.

 

[The Renegade]

I posted the former Vice Presidents speech because it was very thinly covered in the news...

By who?!? CNN, MSNBC, FOX? <--its the top news story covered for politics on their website during the time of this posting. All of the aformentioned and just about every major news network and online paper is covering the former VP's speech and is talking about it at length to the point where I can't watch the news anymore.

Since its Thurs, its going to be a weekend story... what a treat :sleep_125

 

[Godspeed]

By who?!? CNN, MSNBC, FOX? <--its the top news story covered for politics on their website during the time of this posting. All of the aformentioned and just about every major news network and online paper is covering the former VP's speech and is talking about it at length to the point where I can't watch the news anymore.

Since its Thurs, its going to be a weekend story... what a treat :sleep_125

Thinly covered as in all you hear is a random 3 second sound bite taken from the 30+ minute speech.

 

[mmx1]

I guess you haven't noticed how Cheney's been all over the news the last few weeks as the "defender-in-chief" for the Bush Administration, to include multiple appearances on Fox News and his interview on Face the Nation last week.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...-defender-chief-bush-years-drawing-criticism/

 

[swerdna]

I guess you haven't noticed how Cheney's been all over the news the last few weeks as the "defender-in-chief" for the Bush Administration, to include multiple appearances on Fox News and his interview on Face the Nation last week.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...-defender-chief-bush-years-drawing-criticism/

I've noticed that, too. And this had me wondering today whether or not the former VP is trying to fill the "power vacuum" in the GOP, and is maybe thinking towards 2012.

Then again, at 68 he really doesn't have much to lose. Is 71 too old to run for President?

 

[Flash]

Thinly covered as in all you hear is a random 3 second sound bite taken from the 30+ minute speech.

ABC Nightly News covered both speeches equally, about 4 minutes each for both at the top of their broadcast. Maybe you ought to actually watch some of the news......

 

[Flash]

I've noticed that, too. And this had me wondering today whether or not the former VP is trying to fill the "power vacuum" in the GOP, and is maybe thinking towards 2012.

Then again, at 68 he really doesn't have much to lose. Is 71 too old to run for President?

Not at all, but with his extremely low approval ratings and past health issues any possible Presidential run is a non-starter for him.

 

[Godspeed]

I guess you haven't noticed how Cheney's been all over the news the last few weeks as the "defender-in-chief" for the Bush Administration, to include multiple appearances on Fox News and his interview on Face the Nation last week.

Not really. Been busier than a one legged butt kicker... Only been catching the headlines here and there.

I didn't really start this thread to bash on the former VP or the current President to be honest. I was hoping to share the video of the speech with people that would be interested and possibly inspire some intelligent discussion about the key topics discussed therein along the way.

I thought he had a 'good' speech and spoke directly about fundamental topics that are under much political controversy these days. Even some of the most remotely intelligent far lefters could agree to this without clinging to stupid catch phrases..... "defender-in-chief"

I'm not much of a fan of the child play name calling... I think it's as much of a waste of time as me responding to it, frankly.

If a person can talk about the key issues that are at fault behind a person's views without attacking them personally (with retarded, media contrived catch phrases in this case), it speaks a lot more for their credibility.

On the other hand, if you call names, I think it shows that you have flawed logic and don't have enough reason to back your views up.

 

[mmx1]

re: "defender-in-chief" I pulled it right from the Fox News headline, chief. It's a cute play on words. It's not derogatory, and it's fairly accurate. Chill out.

You want derogatory you can refer to my first post, where I pointed out Cheney umm...."exaggerated", to put it generously.

 

[HH-60H]

just drop it and get on with something substantive

 

[swerdna]

Not really. Been busier than a one legged butt kicker... Only been catching the headlines here and there.

I didn't really start this thread to bash on the former VP or the current President to be honest. I was hoping to share the video of the speech with people that would be interested and possibly inspire some intelligent discussion about the key topics discussed therein along the way.

I thought he had a 'good' speech and spoke directly about fundamental topics that are under much political controversy these days. Even some of the most remotely intelligent far lefters could agree to this without clinging to stupid catch phrases..... "defender-in-chief"

Good speech or not, I don't think his timing or topic was an accident. What people are speaking about is almost always tied to why they are speaking about it.

 

[Flash]

Only been catching the headlines here and there.

Then quit making blanket statements about something you don't know about.

I posted the former Vice Presidents speech because it was very thinly covered in the news and provided a publically obscured "different" perspective.

If a person can talk about the key issues.....

All right, I disagree with the former Vice President's assertion that torture works, though he claims that waterboarding is not torture. If it worked why do they tell us otherwise in SERE? Did it work on the US POW's in Vietnam and Korea? What makes these guys so different? Where are the studies proving that it does work? The guys formulating policy didn't even bother to find out any history behind the practice and its previous prosecution of waterboarding as a war crime by the US against some Japanese after WWII. All of this was done by people who had little to no experience in interrogation or handling prisoners. The experts they asked, JPRA, even told them that these practices produced unreliable information. Now all of this is being defended by a guy who had "had other priorities in the 60's than military service"?

Give me a break. :icon_roll

 

[Bevo16]

All right, I disagree with the former Vice President's assertion that torture works, though he claims that waterboarding is not torture.

Are you posting drunk? You disagree with an assertion that the Vice President specifically did not make? He said water boarding is not torture, and that it works. It's pretty simple.

If it worked why do they tell us otherwise in SERE?

Were you drunk at SERE too? They said that torture does not work. About a week later the staff does a pretty good job of proving that water boarding does, in fact, work.

Did it work on the US POW's in Vietnam and Korea? What makes these guys so different?

Sometimes, yes, the torture that the VC and Koreans did on our guys did work. They did a hell of a lot worse than water boarding though, and it is ignorant and insulting to attempt to equate what our guys did at Gitmo to what happened to our POW's in those conflicts.

Give me a break. :icon_roll

Indeed.