Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama vs Cheney: A (Polling) Mismatch from the Start

The dueling speeches by President Obama and former vice president Dick Cheney are being cast as a showdown over national security but the tit for tat is a mismatch from the start.

Why?

Here are the last four personal favorability ratings for Obama: 56 percent, 68 percent 60 percent and 58 percent.

Here are the last four personal favorability ratings for Cheney: 37 percent, 18 percent, 19 percent and 30 percent.

What these numbers show clearly is that the American public is far more favorably inclined to listen to what the president has to say than they are to hear Cheney out.

Message matters in politics but only if the messenger is credible. In the context of a campaign, a negative attack only works when the person making the attack is trusted and believable.

So, too, in a policy debate. Cheney's message hardly matters because he, as a messenger, is badly flawed in the eyes of the American people. Republicans privately acknowledge this, arguing that in the hands of a more popular (or less divisive) politician -- the ideas that Cheney are putting forward could find fertile ground with the American people.

But, that's not the dynamic we find today. No matter how the two speeches are covered -- dueling visions for the country, Obama versus Cheney, restoring American values vs keeping America safe -- the underlying political dynamic is clear: Obama's message is far more likely to resonate with the American people because they are predisposed to like and believe him.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 21, 2009; 10:50 AM ET
Categories:  White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: White House Cheat Sheet: It's Still the Economy, Stupid
Next: Wag the Blog: Who Won on Substance?

Comments

Cheney CLEARLY was scared SH*tless by 9/11....in a way we ALL were scared sh*tless. But is sacrificing what WE as AMERICANS stand for a courageous way to deal with them terrorists? Is manipulating and justifying waterboarding as "LEGAL" truly "courageous"? If you ask me, I would have to conclude that by justifying and adopting waterboarding, we have proved to be mere cowards! Can you Republicans get a HINT????? A CLUE???? A CLUEEE????????? Hmmm...pardon my repetitiousnesss LOL - Consider this - Republicans are so uncredubly perfectly inclusive, I know I could NEVER feel accepted in such an exclusive political PARTY..Is it LUL or LOL? HU HU HA..hhmmm! America does NOT need TODAYS version of the Republican Party...plz desseppeer!

Posted by: cfrivera1 | May 26, 2009 4:17 AM | Report abuse

Oh, I get it, JakeD. You are an ancient white man. I should have known. Die!

Posted by: cythera45 | May 26, 2009 12:32 AM | Report abuse

jaked wrote: "Don't worry, I will be golfing and sailing tomorrow, so I won't be posting "over and over" then ; )"

No, but you'll be back posting just as frantically as ever as soon as you reach shore, won't you?

Posted by: nodebris | May 22, 2009 1:09 AM | Report abuse

When did the Republican Party become such a pack of trembling cowards?

Posted by: nodebris | May 22, 2009 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Fortunately, Jake, Barack's a big boy and can take. As is the case for Dick.

BB

P.S. Any restaurant recommendations for San Diego? Heading out in August. Will repeat in another thread in case you're not following this one anymore.

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 21, 2009 11:52 PM | Report abuse

So here comes a REAL-PUBLIC-an...

I can hardly believe that a U.S. Newspaper pays a guy like this!!!

Seriously he talks Poll Numbers?!? Credibility linked to Poll Numbers?!?! The media pushes Polls far too much! They're inaccurate and this article only continues the use of it's ignorance...

NEXT!!!

Posted by: SUFFER-FREEDOM | May 21, 2009 10:34 PM | Report abuse

So here comes a REAL-PUBLIC-an...

I can hardly believe that a U.S. Newspaper pays a guy like this!!!

Seriously he talks Poll Numbers?!? Credibility linked to Poll Numbers?!?! The media pushes Polls far too much! They're inaccurate and this article only continues the use of it's ignorance...

NEXT!!!

Posted by: SUFFER-FREEDOM | May 21, 2009 10:34 PM | Report abuse

So here comes a REAL-public-an...

This article is mindless, I can't believe the post pays this guy! Seriously, the polls are based off 1000 people or so, obviously a number that represents every last one of Americans...

I'm done on this one.

Posted by: SUFFER-FREEDOM | May 21, 2009 10:31 PM | Report abuse

"A weakened military" is a good description of the United States Army the day after the photos from Abu Ghraib were published. A democracy's army has no weapon so powerful as moral authority. Cheney can't wait to surrender it, he's so afraid of terrorists.

He gives new meaning to the term "chickenhawk".

Posted by: douglaslbarber | May 21, 2009 10:20 PM | Report abuse

A weakened military, a stronger Taliban, Russia, Iran, Myanamar, Sudan and Venezuela, a bankrupting force depleting war against a non threat, war crimes (torture and rendition), discarding Gen. Franks Iraq plan using Condi's rushed one instead, the resignations of Shinseki, Powell and Fallon, appointing Saudi Imans in our prisons, giving away a state secret that was an expert on Iranian nuclear production in Valerie Plame, the poor Lt. investigation 2 billion lost by military contractors shot in the back of the head on base in Iraq, poor medical care for returning heros, unarmored vehicles causing unneeded loss, egging Georgia on to go up on the bear, saying Iran is a major threat to our country, and the big one $140 oil that collapsed our credit bubble economy is Cheney's legacy. Clinton cut the military to where he could not invade Afghanistan, yet we were not attacked, so he did as well as this chest thumping torture authorizer.

Posted by: jameschirico | May 21, 2009 10:03 PM | Report abuse

To put it another way, Dick Cheney, for all his macho know-it-all bluster, doesn't know anything more than you or I know.

And it's high time we quit letting folks like him off the hook with the excuse, "well, you know things we don't know."

If you were a parent, and you had a child who kept getting into fights, a child whose grades were dropping, you wouldn't listen exclusively to the child, and ignore other sources of information, would you?

Posted by: douglaslbarber | May 21, 2009 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza,
You fail to recognize that the majority of Americans aren't impressed with all the news coverage splitting hairs on what is lawful or legal in regards to torture. What the majority of Americans want in our country is the security of knowing that we are protected from terrorists, terrorist groups and any form of attack. Americans are proud of thankful for these different organizations that help protect us! Have you forgotten what some of these terrorists have done to Americans especially the attack on 9/11? Are you suggesting that people pay attention to polls and are affected by these results? It doesn't affect my views especially when I heard President Obama's speech today. He overstretched his argument stating that waterboarding would actually affect how these radical terrorists or other countries would view America. Honestly, do you believe that statement? These are people who elevate death higher than life.

Posted by: Rhonda5 | May 21, 2009 9:51 PM | Report abuse

If I were to revise and extend my remarks, I'd note that Cheney obviously believes he's the nation's "national security" conscience.

Republicans have touted themselves as the national security party, during the same period when they've held the office of the president more often than they've held majorities in both houses of congress.

In any case, Cheney's biography is a sad thing. Congressman, then chief of staff to a congressman who accidentally got made president, then secretary of defense to a good man who knew how to keep him in his place, then vice president.

What's gotten him ahead is a Charlton Heston type macho presence, with no knowledge to back it up. He comes across as authoritative, but it's a mystery just when and how he became an authority on anything other than how to affix himself to presidents. Like a tick.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | May 21, 2009 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Dick Cheney needs to be waterboarded...not to gain any information but just to shut his pie-hole.This goon,culpable for the deaths of thousands of good Americans in Iraq,deserves nothing less than to be tortured for his actions and behavior over the last 8 years.He is a blight on our land and he just needs to die and go away.I hope his cardiologist is due for a long vacation.Should he live longer than necessary,prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.Do we still do firing squads? He's an excellent candidate.Scr** him.

Posted by: klowry57 | May 21, 2009 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Cheney obviously believes he's the USA's conscience. Which just goes to show how deluded a politician from Wyoming can become, having made a career of being a staffer who sounds like a know-it-all who cleaves like a tick to men who become president and aren't qualified for the office.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | May 21, 2009 8:32 PM | Report abuse

bobnsri:

Did you see my question to you?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 7:56 PM | Report abuse

History has shown conservatives are anti-American. Their beliefs, tested by history, are always, WRONG!

Posted by: bobnsri | May 21, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris - Nobody reads these comments.

Posted by: princeleo | May 21, 2009 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Why Do Conservatives Hate America So Much?

Conservatives: Backed The British in 1776

Conservatives: Backed British in War of 1812

Conservatives: Backed the South in Civil War

Conservatives: Against Entry in WWII

Conservatives: Against Creation of Social Security

Conservatives: Against Creation of FTC

Conservatives: Against Creation of Minimum Wage

Conservatives: Against Creation of MediCaid

Conservatives: Against Creation of Head Start

Conservatives: Against Clean Air Act

Conservatives: Against Clean Water Act

Conservatives: Against ALL Civil Rights Bills

Conservatives: Against ALL business regulations.


Conservatives have been against, EVERYTHING that is pro-American starting with the Revolutionary War.
And they will always be against America, because conservatives are "me first" the USA second!

Posted by: bobnsri | May 21, 2009 7:47 PM | Report abuse

bobnsri:

Do you also blame FDR for the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

To: Beltway Pundits
From: Robert Blanchard/North Smithfield, RI
RE: Obama/Cheney


No one, outside of Washington cares what Cheney says except political windbags on the left and the right.

We all know Cheney/Bush kept us safe, starting on 9/12.

They did NOT keep us safe on 9/11.

Posted by: bobnsri | May 21, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

ALL YOU LIBS ARE TRULY INSANE! What a bunch of candy a$$ bleeding hearts. Watch any video on the web (there are many) of these Islamic barbarians sawing off the head of an innocent while chanting praise to Allah, and then ask me if I give a sh** how they interogate the gitmo prisoners. They should execute every last one of them! END OF STORY! GO CHENEY!!

Posted by: geriatrad | May 21, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! I do not live in my parent's basement, I have been married for 48 years, and we are going sailing tomorrow (thanks for asking). As for my "threat" about Obama not being legally sworn in as President on January 20, 2009, that actually came true.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

No jhherring, the analysis is that Cheney has zero credibility and is loathed by the American people for being a liar that led us into a protracted, bloody, expensive and unncessary war and thinks that tying people up and hooking electrodes to their privates is simply a "matter of public policy."

The man is sick and people factor that in when listening to the crap coming from his mouth.

Posted by: SWB2 | May 21, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

How nice to see an analysis which says, essentially, that policy is simply determined by who is popular, and that most people cannot actually distinguish message from messenger and evaluate an argument on its merits. If that is correct, well, I suspect there is little hope left for this as a major nation.

Posted by: jhherring | May 21, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

JakeD and vbhoomes have been on this exchange for over 5 hours. They use this site as some twisted social networking tool. I guess this is where people go when they have no life and their only mode of communication is spewing GOP talking points.

Guys, move out of your parent's basement, get a girlfriend and LIVE! LIVE I SAY!!

Posted by: SWB2 | May 21, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

And for the record, JakeD, your previous comments on this board regarding whether Obama would be sworn as president were viewed as a possible threat and looked into. But it is nice to know you can quote the law so well...

Posted by: LABC | May 21, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse


The fact that you are so familiar with that phrase makes me worry more about you than those 19 Uighars. Blech.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 21, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Jaysus, JakeDuh - have you made a permanent home on this site? Every time I come here, you are the first arse out of the gate with some anti-Obama blather. I thought you golfed and pretended to be a master of the universe. I guess Alan Keyes is safely home now, plotting his next bit of insanity so you have some down time, huh?

Posted by: LABC | May 21, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

Well, not "anything". I would never knowingly and willfully deposit for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon Obama, or knowingly and willfully otherwise make any such threat against Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

All of the democrats negative talk so far condems Vice President Chenny for being part a regime that tortured indesciminately innocent individuals for no apparent reson.
Madam Pelosi takes another tack, it just never happend that way and for that she gets a free pass for her transgressions and lies from the democratic leadership, except for Barach who is staying out of the conflict between Madam Pelosi and everybody else..

Posted by: a4853916 | May 21, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

1) Yes, it was part of the dissenting (ie minority) opinion in a free speech case before the Supreme Court 60 years ago. But I do not disagree with temporarily suspending the right of habeus corpus, if that is your drift.

2) I agree they may be dangerous, but not more than any other wrongly imprisoned person.

3) I do not agree that American lives are worth more than other lives. However, the bulk of your point seems to be that Category 3 does not exist, and those people belong in Category 5. If they have nothing against the United States, and were actually fighting for Muslim minority rights in China, then I do not agree that they are POWs. IF their incarceration has radicalized them against the US, then Obama can make that argument to the USSC.

4) That is cowardly.

No more questions for you. Your admission that you will do anything to slow down Obama's progressive agenda is all I needed to hear.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 21, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

suicide3 = just plain ol' "suicide" (not suicide cubed ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

1) I have heard of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Have you heard of the phrase "The Constitution is not a suicide3 pact"?

2) I think they would be dangerous because I know that I would be (as an "innocent" locked up for 8+ years ; )

3) Because American lives are more important than foreign lives and, even if they aren't, under the Geneva Conventions, a captured combatant can be detained for the duration of the conflict so long as he remains a threat to capturing nation. Therefore, even these guys who are not guilty of any crime can still be detained in federal prison indefinitely in accordance with some kind of a judicial review process whereby a judge determines a) the conflict has not ceased (depending on what you define as the conlfict this can easily be indefinitely) and b) the individual remains a threat to the United States (should not be too difficult). My guess is these individuals will have their case reviewed periodically (say annually). (shout out to "ADub1" from the other thread)

4) If there's no other way around the the Supreme Court, then I would simply kick them out the back gate and let Castro deal with them.

Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

August30:

This should be good. How is CHENEY responsible for our economic meltdown (please compare and contrast that to Clinton-era government pressure on lenders to make risky loans in order to "make homeownership more affordable for lower-income Americans and those with a poor credit history")?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse


That's what I thought.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 21, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Why would Obama pass a handgrenade back and forth with Cheney? Cheney has nothing to lose, he's and old man with questionable health and no political or financial gain to be realized.

So, Obama can only lose this game, even if he wins - because empty victories aren't really very satisfying.

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 21, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse


1) Yes, those are questions I would like you to answer.

2) Yes, I remember Willie Horton.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 21, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

How quickly Americans forget that Cheney is responsible for our economic meltdown and Obama has fixed his mess to a great extent. Cheney has no credibility from the get go. Good article, Chris.

Posted by: August30 | May 21, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

hoomes, don't get your panties in a ruffle. If you can't handle the discourse then switch to sesame street.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 21, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Right.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse


I keep typing "we are a country of laws" and people respond by suggesting we, or the president, should ignore those laws.

I am in favor of President Obama making his case to the Supreme Court why particular detainees should not be released. That is the way it should work, as opposed to drafting secret legal memos to cover your @ss for something you know is not legal.

Somehow Jake, I think you would love to see Obama get in a tussle with the Court, and maybe pull in Congress to have him impeached. Anything to slow down his progressive agenda, right?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 21, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

Are those questions you expect me to answer? Just so it's clear between us, if I include this punctuation known as a QUESTION MARK ("?"), that means I expect an answer.

In general, just as YOU pointed out before, Cheney is not omniscient -- neither is Obama nor either of us -- politically speaking, there's no way someone is going to be released from GTMO into the United States if there's any chance he's going to go kill Americans. Remember Dukakis and Willie" Horton?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse


Jake, have you ever heard of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty?"

You are assuming that these 19 detainees, who (out of 800 or more processed at Gitmo) the USSC says should be released. Why do you think they are so dangerous? And what makes you think we have the right to detain them forever, on foreign soil, for having committed no wrongdoing?

If Obama and the Supremes have an argument about whether someone is category 3 or 5, they can sort that out. Checks and balances, and all that.

Just because these "wrongly imprisoned" people are at Gitmo, does not mean they are potential terrorists. These particular ones would be a bigger threat to China than to the US.

Perhaps you would prefer we just kick them out the back gate and let Castro deal with them?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 21, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

jakey, I didn't ask you any questions. If you weren't so clueless as usual you would have realized that my asking you about your meds was not a question I expected you to answer. Putz.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 21, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Wow, that Cythia45 violates about evey rule for this blog. I believe in the 1st amendment, but she has clearly crossed the line by what is appropriate for the exchange if ideas. Chrus enforce your rules or do away with them.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 21, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

For everyone else, it was MIKEinMIDLAND (not me) who was "being clueless as usual. If we picked up someone in Afghanistan and put them in Gitmo, why would we then release them in the US? We'd release them back in Afghanistan. Stupid."

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

jasperanselm:

Too bad you refused to answer my questions on prior threads in a civil manner, or I would have gladly answered yours in this thread.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

jakey, did you forget your meds again? There was no apology offered to you.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 21, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

jasperanselm:

I accept your apology.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

"If and when they do something illegal, something can be done about that."

Not if their own suicide attacks kill them (and another 3,000 Americans, or more). Luckily, Obama does not seem to agree with your useless, after-the-fact approach. He insisted today that he would not authorize the freeing of anyone who would "endanger the American people". I suspect that would mean even if the Supreme Court ordered said release -- if I were President, I would defy the Supreme Court -- remember President Jackson's (in)famous quote?

Don't even get me started on DNA evidence.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I'd have to disagree with that, Mike. If their home country won't take them back then it should be up to them to find a country that will. The fact that we had them at Gitmo, regardless of treatment, should not provide a back door for access to the US.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 21, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse


I am certainly not opposed to having innocent people, of whatever nationality, live in this country.

If the USSC says release them, release them. If their home country won't take them, nor a third country, then yes eventually we will have to let them live in this country.

It is the least we can do for having wrongly imprisoned them.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 21, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse


Lots of people have been wrongly imprisoned, for decades, and then been released due to new evidence. Usually DNA evidence, these days.

Are you suggesting, Jake, that these people should not be released, because they might be mad about being locked up? Compounding wrong upon wrong?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 21, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

Please clarify if your hypothetical does NOT involve detainees being released to "live in this country" (as you said) meaning the United States. Thanks.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Jake,

I think we are talking mostly about the Uighars, who we have been detaining for the Chinese. The COMMIE CHINESE who say they are terrorists. Who we can't send to China because the Chinese will torture and kill them. Who Reagan would have called "freedom fighters."

I have no idea whether these people would be bitter about their incarceration. Probably. They have a right to be. If and when they do something illegal, something can be done about that.

But this is all beside the point. We are a country of laws. And I can tell you I will go along with the Supreme Court's decision on these detainees a lot easier than I will a certain decision they made in 2000.

Do you only acknowledge the Supreme Court when you agree with them?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 21, 2009 3:52 PM | Report abuse

jakey, you're being clueless as usual. If we picked up someone in Afghanistan and put them in Gitmo, why would we then release them in the US? We'd release them back in Afghanistan. Stupid.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 21, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised that she isn't working for Halliburton yet.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 21, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

Let's suppose, then, that 19 "innocents" are let go in the USA -- they probably have to be given some sort of financial award too -- maybe a couple of them look into flying lessons, and another one wants to go into farming, I'm sure they will bhe happy to let bygones be bygones so that would no big concern for you, right?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse


Liz Cheney just wants to help bump the book sales. If the old man goes to prison, he won't be able to spend as much of her inheritance. Bonus!

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 21, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, I hope you are hijacked by Somali pirates and force-fed golfballs, you worthless savage degenerate animal. My guess is more likely tomorrow you will be going back to your checker jop at Walmart.

Posted by: cythera45 | May 21, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

OK, here's my shorthand for the 5 categories:

1) criminals
2) war criminals
3) wrongly imprisoned
4) foreign transferees
5) POWs

Just because the US Supreme Court (not "some liberal judge") orders category 3 to be released, doesn't mean we have to let them live in this country.

But if we did, what exactly is the harm? These are people we swept up in our CIA net, probably at the direction of some rival warlord, and dumped in Gitmo for years without a reason.

What on earth makes you so sure that, just because the CIA detained someone, that means they are dangerous? Most are, but a few are not. The Bush Administration already released over 500 people they initially detained. The CIA is not God. Cheney is not omniscient.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 21, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Liz Cheney's worried that the old man is going to jail; she should be.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 21, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, FairlingtonBlade: it's plain "PURE" simple "treason" if the person you voted for gets a tongue lashing ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Liz Cheney for President, just as tough as her old man, but does it with a warm smile.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 21, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry, I will be golfing and sailing tomorrow, so I won't be posting "over and over" then ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Do you note the desperation in the way jaked posts over and over, in the way Cheney travels the country obsessively trying to justify what he did?

They won't admit it, but they see the change coming. They know it's too late to stop it. What you're hearing from them aren't honest attempts to persuade or convince; they are the last anguished screams of the vanquished.

Posted by: nodebris | May 21, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Why shrink from the truth of torture, Anne? It thrills you, admit it--to think of torturing. You lie awake in your bed at night shivering with ecstasy at the vision of naked Muslims being abused. You are the naked face of evil.

Posted by: cythera45 | May 21, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Cheney's word ARE treason, pure and simple. A cell in GITMO is too good for him. Public execution on live TV would be preferable.

Posted by: cythera45 | May 21, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

DouginMountVernon:

Are you still around? I hope that I didn't scare you off.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Popularity polls have nothing to do with effectiveness. You kumbaya people out there should learn something about the real world. Stop throwing around the term "torture". If insults and humiliation and yes, even waterboarding are "torture" then I can sue my parents, my teachers,and many of my childhood friends, including the boy who kept holding my head under water in the pool. Torture is beheading, torture is seeing your child raped and killed in front of you, torture is a long list of gruesome practices used by our enemies, all of which show our interrogation techniques to be mercifully mild and controlled. One of my values is not to commit national suicide by the ill-conceived mea culpa path we seem to be on.

Posted by: anne4 | May 21, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Nobody liked Darth or Dr. Strangelove.. but we can't look away. That Cheney gets any attention, at all, speaks volumes about Obama's weaknesses. This isn't about personal popularity.. this is about validating our young leader.

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 21, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Re: Cheney "It's treason, plain and simple."

It wasn't treason when Obama was denouncing Bush. It isn't treason when Cheney is denouncing Obama. It's called free speech and applies to both politicians and the public.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 21, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Well, at least one "point" in keeping them there is that when some liberal judge orders them released, it won't be onto a street in some American city.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Not all 240 are enemy combatants. Some have been ordered released by the US Supreme Court. Some can be tried and found guilty of US laws. Some can be convicted under the uniform code of military justice.

The 5th category is that subset that we know to be a continued danger to national security, but cannot be convicted in one of these courts. Perhaps because they were tortured. Perhaps because they openly admit that they will try to harm Americans if they are released.

You seem to think that there are only two ways of thinking--yours and the ACLU's. I think the correct way of handling this from the beginning would have been to treat them all as POW's. There was no reason to put them in Cuba except to try to keep them out of US court jurisdiction. That failed, so there is no point in keeping them there.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 21, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

DouginMountVernon:

You falsely claimed that I lied -- I denied it -- not sure why you think that is an unreasonable response on my part.

dbitt:

Are you claiming that the ACLU has never filed a legal brief seeking to release terrorist(s)?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, I said that you "fancifully backtracked". Funny though, you sound more and more like a Bush administration official with every comment! ("I did not lie.")

You just can't make this stuff up!

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | May 21, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

dbitt:

I was referring to the ACLU, not Dingy Harry.

biggirl90:

So, you DISAGREE with Obama and think that they should be released?

Posted by: JakeD
***********
Man, JakeD just has hundreds of friends and supporters on this forum...
Seriously, JD, you're trying to push that ACLU-as-bogeyman "they want to free Satan's henchmen!" BS? Grow up, please.
Either that or find something factual to argue. Your Limbaugh ditto sheet full of talking points is out of date.

Posted by: dbitt | May 21, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

neil3:

I just re-read your post. If I mischaracterized YOUR hypothetical (or, for that matter, didn't answer your question in full), please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Can't we use the Patriot Act to jail this traitor Cheney? I hope Obama is eavesdropping on all his communications via the NSA. He is undoubtedly in contact with terrorists and America-haters. A firing squad is too good for him.

Posted by: cythera45 | May 21, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

You just don't agree that all 240 are "enemy combatants" then?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse


Someone please explain how these particular 240 prisoners are more deadly than the thousands we already have in US prisons, including over 300 convicted terrorists.

They are not comic-book supervillians. They are just men. Some of them may have some training in blowing stuff up. Big deal. Nothing you couldn't learn on the internet these days.

Yes, they could form gangs in prison. So what? Some may even escape. Some may kill Americans on American soil. Americans do that to each other, by the hundreds, every single day. Dead is dead.

Terrorism is not the killing of innocent civilians. It is the instilling of FEAR by those killings. No terror, no terrorism.

We've lost more lives fighting in Iraq than we did on 9/11, yes. We've also lost many many many more lives to random violence in this country, including drunk driving.

That town in Montana with the empty prison--they'd take the prisoners, and the jobs. Some of their citizens said they'd rather have terrorists than sex offenders.

Let's quit giving these guys what they want (our fear). Give 'em a trial and stick 'em in prison (if they are guilty). Done.

As for the 5th category, I'm fine with keeping enemy combatants incarcerated for the duration.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 21, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Cheney is a simple traitor. He should be hung alongside Limbaugh, Hannity, and all their treasonous ilk.

Posted by: cythera45 | May 21, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I did not lie.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Right you are JakeD. In more ways than one.

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | May 21, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, you are full of it. That is NOT what your post said, and I find it convenient that you will so fancifully backtrack.

You said "your" fanciful hypothetical--meaning someone else's--specifically neil3's.

Typical neocon defender. Lies are the only way. But even so, it is NOT a fanciful hypothetical to imagine that US troops are more likely to be mistreated. If you've had any family or close friends fighting for US in Iraq, you would know better than to use such irresponsible language to dismiss their REALITY, and you should also know better than to defend the indefensible use of torure tactics by any US entity.

It is so far beneath our ideals that you should be ashamed. Again, your ilk know no shame.

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | May 21, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

So much for people being "wholly unaware" ...

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

MARY Cheney is the lesbian.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

ha ha....doc86, i love "squak box" for Liz. You know, not only is she completely discredited and non-believable, but she is an utter traitor to GLBT people like her and her partner. The opportunities she had as the daughter of the VP of US to STOP the politicization of the lives of GLBT people by the Republican Party were immense, and she completely blew them.

She deserves scorn and disgust from GLBT people everywhere. She ought to be ashamed, but clearly the Cheneys don't know what shame should look or feel like.

They are an embarassment to themselves, and they are wholly unaware of it. Well, expcept for Dick, which is why we keep seeing him rear his dark head--he can't help himself.

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | May 21, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

DouginMountVernon:

Read my post again (I said the "fanciful hypothetical" would be TERRORISTS only waterboarding our troops instead of beheading them) -- I also served in combat during the Korean War in the Army -- how about you?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm, zouk,

Since you obviously think drindl is a loon, then are you also admitting that Cheney is a crook?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 21, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh how I wish Cheney had run for president. Then he would have a fraction of a limb to stand on.

Posted by: HardyW | May 21, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and JakeD, you've obviously never served a day in your life, or you would not consider it a "fanciful hypothetical" that American troops may be more likely to be mistreated if they were unfortunate enough to become prisoners of war.

This one glaringly arrogant statement says more about you and your "values" (namely the utter lack of respect for the men & women who's lives are on the line!) for this country, its servicemen & servicewomen, and the values and virtues which we all hold dear.

Incidentally, torture is not among them.

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | May 21, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

DouginMountVernon:

"Almost" (NOT!)

What part of "I am not 'hoping' for another attack" aren't you understanding?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

You are correct except for the grammar error ("The ideas that Cheney are....."). Cheney is a loon and not credible. His squak box daughter is even less believable.

Posted by: doc86 | May 21, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

She also mistakenly believes that Chris Matthews was rooting for MCCAIN!!! See what I mean?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, you know, listening to Cheney, you almost get the sense that he LONGS for those horrible days immediately after 9-11. You know, back when the American people actually were 100% behind Bush & Cheney because they thought that they would respond in a vigorous and responsible way to the attacks. Well, at least they got the vigorous part.

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | May 21, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"She's actually "convinced" that we are the same person. As if there could not be TWO conservatives left anywhere in the U.S.?! LOL!!!"

soon you old f*rts will die off and there will be 0.

Posted by: drindl | May 21, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk:

She's actually "convinced" that we are the same person. As if there could not be TWO conservatives left anywhere in the U.S.?! LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

is jaked the biggest clown on the internets or what?

Posted by: drindl |
I vore drivl biggest stooge. and hairiest.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 21, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse


"The GOP effort to investigate Nancy Pelosi over the waterboarding imbroglio just went down on a 252-172, largely party-line vote, with no Democratic defections and two Republicans — Ron Paul of Texas and North Carolina's Walter Jones — voting with the majority.

Five R's, including Michele Bachmann, and four D's didn't vote.

"This is partisan politics and an attempt by the Republicans to distract from the real issue of creating jobs and making progress on health care, energy and education," said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami."

File under Clown Shoes.

Posted by: drindl | May 21, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Shortest drivl:

"I am not a loon."

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 21, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Shortest Cheney:

"I am not a crook."

Posted by: drindl | May 21, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

As I told tallertapas311, Cheney wouldn't have mentioned it so many times if you guys had learned the lessons from that day.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

you'd think if you were going to hire a troll to lurk on a site all day, you could at least find one with a brain.

Posted by: drindl | May 21, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"there's no doubt I've won the SUBSTANCE of this debate."

LOL

let's have a show of hands. is jaked the biggest clown on the internets or what?

Posted by: drindl | May 21, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

'The reference to the "left" is a revealing slip. Cheney began his speech by presenting himself as a simple, plainspoken fellow who had no office to seek, no grudges to settle. But by the end, his mask slipped and the culture warrior appeared. His war isn't against terrorism. It's against Obama.'

It's treason, plain and simple.

Posted by: drindl | May 21, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

It was actually 27 times, but who's counting (beside the left blogosphere)?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/21/cheney_speaks.html#more

I'm sure that I wouldn't win any "popularity" contest here, either, but there's no doubt I've won the SUBSTANCE of this debate. Next question (from anyone who is willing to answer MY questions)?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

FAILURE is another name for Cheney and Bush. The duo who made a mess of the the US; 2 idiots who could not come up with a legal creative ways to defend the country so they resoted to the Nazi and Stalin's methods of making people talk. Cheney brought shame and ridicule to America. He used fearmongering and scare tactics which made Americans look like wusses afraid of a handful terrorists. Guantanamos is a gulag, nothing to be proud of. Obama is right, America became a superpower because we were the good guys, brave, courageous, unafraid of the big bad wolves.

Posted by: mstratas | May 21, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

25 times he mentions 9/11. cheney is the new guiliani -- a noun, a verb and 9/11.


"Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory.

From there, Cheney talks about the run-up to 9/11, the events of 9/11, where he was on 9/11 (”I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities”), the aftermath of 9/11 (”We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in”), the temporary patriotism of the media (”After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11″), the threat of a “9/11 with nuclear weapons,” and how the administration prevented another 9/11. In all, he mentions “September 11″ or “9/11″ 25 times."

Posted by: drindl | May 21, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

I'm convinced that jaked and zouk are the same person. I wonder who pays them to stay on here all day every single day?

Posted by: drindl | May 21, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

'Perhaps you MISSED Chris Matthews having a "tingle" for Obama?'

that for mccain, you dolt. the press loved mccain. he used to invite them to stay over the weekend at his arizona retreat and feed them bits of meat and alcohol. and they always wagged their tails.

Posted by: drindl | May 21, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Cheney handed chemical weapons to dictator "BEFORE" Sept 11th leading to death of innocents

Cheney failed to protect 3,000 Americans "ON" Sept 11th

Cheney led to death of 4,000 Americans "AFTER" Sept 11th

What credibility does he have about nation security?

Posted by: paul65 | May 21, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"So why does WaPo still carry this stupid "the cheney vice-presidency" on the front page of your website ?"

Are you referring to the "Angler" series? I hope that stays up there. It's a very good read on how Cheney controlled the levers of power. I think it won a Pulitzer as well.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 21, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

neil3:

Another "country" would be violating the Geneva Convention -- "Terrorists" however would be doing our troops a favor by NOT KILLING THEM VIA BEHEADING as they have been doing up until your fanciful hypothetical -- next question?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Cheney handed chemical weapons to dictator "BEFORE" Sept 11th leading to death of innocents

Cheney failed to protect 3,000 Americans "ON" Sept 11th

Cheney led to death of 4,000 Americans "AFTER" Sept 11th

What credibility does he have about nation security?

Posted by: SeedofChange | May 21, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

The bottom line on this entire argument is this -- What if another country water boarded or used these same "enhanced interrogation techniques" against U.S. Troops or citizens? The answer is clear what our collective reaction would be -- maybe that would finally silence the apologists for this unacceptable policy and human rights disaster.

Posted by: neil3 | May 21, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I'm more inclined to listen to Obama too. I remember what Bush-Cheney did to ordinary working people who were impoverished while the rich got richer. And I remember what they did to the nation--took us into torture,ease dropping on our citizens and ignoring the war that really had to do with 9/11, Afghanistan, to fight in Iraq instead.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | May 21, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

wheeljc:

Obama referred to his SecDef as WILLIAM Gates too ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

havok26:

Perhaps you MISSED Chris Matthews having a "tingle" for Obama?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Luckily for Cheney he still has plenty of defenders, believers and syncophants in the media. And not just on Fox ... I am sure Chris Mathews will be lick splittling his nether regions tonight on the aptly named Hardball.

Posted by: havok26 | May 21, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Oh, good, here's tony_in_Durham_NC (I know that HE took history in elementary school):

Do you also think that FDR failed to protect the country from the Pearl Harbor attack?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 1:35 PM | Report abuse


If I recall correctly, a conservative Republican was President on the day 9/11 occurred, not a Democrat.

And Dick Cheney was in his bunker.

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | May 21, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

pgibson1:

real = reason

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone other than "drindl" or "marSF" think that FDR failed to protect the country from the Pearl Harbor attack?

"Dinosaurs" not required. But, again, someone with at least an elementary understanding of world history, please.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

pgibson1:

The real Cheney is no longer Vice President is because his term of office ended, nothing else.

gjkbear:

It's not MY job to do anything (Obama's the one that got elected President, remember?). I don't think that we should just round up all the prisoners at Gitmo and shoot them all. Leaving them there would have been fine with me. When they die, burial at sea is too good for them.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

"You libs have no idea how to defend a nation."

Great example of Lizard Brain Deep Thoughts from another GOP dinosaur.

Posted by: marSF | May 21, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Folks,
there is a real reason that Mister Cheney is no longer in a position of real power and it is because of his and his president's mis-handling ( I could easily use less benign terms here ) of the ENTIRE war on terrorism.

I'll agree that swift measures were taken by the Bush administration, and so very many thought it was justifiable - many of those measures, like harsh interrogation, Gitmo, Abu Gahraib, went unnoticed until it appeared that the process was never working.

Try and try again is admirable, however I expected some INTELLIGENCE to the approach, and was sorely disappointed when all of this Bush administration activity was ill-thought-out, knee-jerk reaction to a NYC sucker punch.

To make matters worse, the "intelligence", on the entire Mideast fiasco was far from intelligent, and we all know how many lies were propagated by really careless intelligence gathering and "sexing-up" intelligence beyond the truth.

We ALL know of this. There is no dispute.

What we also have is a performance record of Mister Bush and Mister Cheney.

It is because of this that Cheney is a leadership failure.

End of story.

Not credible, nor wanted in American Government ever again.

Maybe someone can take him out 'duck hunting' again.

Noone would miss him. Really.

So why does WaPo still carry this stupid "the cheney vice-presidency" on the front page of your website ?

He's no longer in that position.

Posted by: pgibson1 | May 21, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Jake D - and you've done such a great job??? I guess you think that we should just round up all the prisoners at Gitmo and what - just shoot them all? No problem then, huh?

Perhaps, we should just execute everyone in all the jails and then America would be safe? Anyone sets foot on our soil that "We don't like or don't want" - blast their asses off?

What would you like to do with these guys? Just hold them at Gitmo, torture them, torture them some more, torture them some more and then when they died, throw them into the sea???

Posted by: gjkbear | May 21, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Darth ChEEEEEney is a complete moron. He is best known to most Americans as "THE TORTURER" and he should be arrested for treason. Nobody likes a liar and an inept one at that. The way you can tell Darth is lying? If he is talking or thinking. I hope he ends up in prison for what's left in his very short time in this life. How's the ole ticker Darth? You old Draft Dodger.

Posted by: tuttlegroup | May 21, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Last night, “an elaborate sting operation” resulted in the arrest of four men accused of plotting to bomb a synagogue and shoot down airplanes. The New York City Police Commissioner said the four men “stated that they wanted to commit jihad,” and said the men were part of a “homegrown terrorism” movement. Given conservatives’ recent hysterical declarations that U.S. prisons are unfit to handle terrorist suspects, Hilzoy challenges the right wing’s talking points in regards to the imprisonment of these “homegrown” terrorists:

This raises the difficult question: what should we do with these would-be terrorists while they await trial? And if they are convicted, what then? I assume that if it’s too dangerous to move people at Guantanamo to the United States, it must be much too dangerous to allow these jihadists to run loose in our prisons. After all, they might provide financing for other jihadists from their supermax cells, or radicalize other prisoners, or use special Terrorist Mind Control Techniques to create a whole army of brainwashed convicts under their complete control.

Posted by: drindl | May 21, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone other than "drindl" think that FDR failed to protect the country from the Pearl Harbor attack? Someone, please, with an elementary understanding of world history.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

On the Senate floor last night, Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) said that American prison guards would “have no idea what they’re getting into” if Guantanamo detainees were transferred to U.S. prisons. Speaking today, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) slammed the GOP, saying his Republican colleagues should have “a little more respect” for the professionalism of American prison guards:

DURBIN: Some of my Republican colleagues argue that Guantanamo is the only appropriate place to hold the detainees and they said, and I quote, “We don’t have a facility that could handle this in the United States,” end of quote. And American prison guards, they went on to say, quote, “have no idea what they’re getting into,” close quote. Well, I would just say to my colleagues who made those statements, you ought to take a look at some of our security facilities in the United States, and you ought to have a little more respect for the men and women who are corrections officers and put their lives on the line every single day to keep us safe and to make sure that those who are dangerous are detained and incarcerated. The reality is that we’re holding some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world right now in our federal prisons, including the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the shoe bomber, the Unibomber, and many others.

Posted by: drindl | May 21, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The outside operations of several prison gangs, such as the Mexican Mafia, Nuestra Familia, the Black Guerrilla Family, the Aryan Brotherhood, and the Nazi Lowriders have all been directed via secret communications from within Pelican Bay's SHU "SuperMax" facility:

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n707/a04.html

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"You libs have no idea how to defend a nation."

what an utter moron jake/zouk is. Let's see, who was in charge of the country on 9/11?

Why it was Dick Cheney, wasn't it? Who utterly FAILED to protect this country. No amount of revisionism cna change the fact that THEY KNEW an attack was coming and did NOTHING to stop it.

Republicans are a complete FAILURE at national security. Why is anyone bothering to listen to their blithering?

Posted by: drindl | May 21, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

The one question I have to ask is this:
If McCain had won the white house and let's say Al Gore or even Bill Clinton was out there and making these kinds of remarks on TV shows - how many from the Republican Party would be calling for either of their heads? Treason would be the watch word of the day. They would be called all sorts of names and perhaps have even been visited by some guys suggesting that they take a long vacation.
But, because it is Cheyney and he is your guy & Obama who was duly elected by a majority of BOTH the popular vote and the electorial college it is OK for Cheyney to make endless inane, treasonous remarks about a sitting President? How do you square that other than by putting the Republican Power grabbing structure against the wishes of most of the Americans?
The biggest difference I see, is that people individually were speaking their thoughts about Cheyney/Bush - but Cheyney was the VP. Gore made a couple of speeches where he criticized Bush's handling of something - but he wasn't on every talk show on Sunday mornings or every show he could get on. Anyone who had a problem with Bush may have made 1 show or 1 statement - and they were called unpatriotic for it and it was suggested they move somewhere else 'cause they were unamerican. So, how come this is OK?

Posted by: gjkbear | May 21, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

President Obama is starting to lose both Jews and Christians for "throwing Israel under the bus"

I and every other Jewish-American supported President Obama and the Democratic Party to the hilt.

They've betrayed that trust.

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 21, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Even if NONE of them were released onto U.S. soil, it is a fact that prison gangs direct operations from inside SuperMax facilities. You libs have no idea how to defend a nation.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

It's time for Cheney to step aside and let the current elected officials run the country. The Bush administration had it's chance, the voters have spoken.

Posted by: OhMy | May 21, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

HarrisTheYounger amd gjkbear:

The ACLU, et al. Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"Just ask yourself, and be honest.
Who would you rather have protecting your family from those that clearly want all Americans dead?
Obama or Cheney?"

Obama, as well as most people who voted. Cheney already failed at this.

"If McCain was in the White House now, he surely wouldn't have announced GTMO closing and risk the release of TERRORISTS into the United States."

I seem to recall him saying at least once that he was going to do exactly that, though I still don't see how that would amount to 'releasing terrorists into the U.S.'

"People HAVE escaped from maximum security prisons."

That isn't what he said, though, is it? He said 'federal supermax prisons'.


"But the bigger concern is that they will be released to participate in, or otherwise direct, attacks against Americans on our soil."

What makes you think that anyone is going to drop these guys off at a Greyhound station in Hackensack or something? A ridiculous notion. Your bogeymen are getting the better of you. You're sounding like that fool from Florida who opined that they might 'radicalize the prison population'. There's a guy with absolutely *no idea* what an American prison is like, especially a supermax. For one, these guys would never in a million years be near any other prisoners *for their OWN safety*, and if they ever were in general population they'd be dead in 5 seconds, and yes, I have worked with that population for years.

Don't be so scared of our enemies that you'd sacrifice rule of law to stay 'protected' from them. THAT would be a bigger win for them than any atrocity they can commit. Time to ditch the short pants in favor of rule of law.

Posted by: HarrisTheYounger | May 21, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Dick Cheney is an embarrassment to the generation that he and I belong to. I am in favor of anything which would protect the US. If I thought torture would help protect the US I would favor torture. Nevertheless, common sense should tell us that Cheney is wrong when he says that "harsh" interrogation has protected the US from another attack. Harsh interrogation, often described as "torture", just does not work. Their are other means of interrogation which are much more likely to produce useful and accurate information.
What Cheney seeks to do on behalf of the Republican Party is to set up the Obama administration for a "told you so". Cheney and the Republicans hope and, many apparently are praying, that the US will suffer another major attack by Terrorists.
That is what Cheney is saying when he says he hopes Obama fails.
Another major Terrorist attack against the US is going to happen and no amount of torture will stop it. The Bush Cheney / Clinton Gore approaches to foreign affairs made many enemies for the US. Some of them have the ability to plan and carry out another attack. It is just a matter of time. However, unlike Dick Cheney and many Republicans, I hope such an attack never takes place.

Posted by: jimeglrd8 | May 21, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Jake: Well then what is your worry - with this 5th category? If they can't be tried and they can't be released then they are not going to be released - are they???

How is someone who is not going to be tried - and not going to be released a threat to you or me or anyone else.

Put them on Alcatraz - it is just sitting there - recommission it or whatever. There are sharks in those waters and it is dangerous. These are desert people, right?

Posted by: gjkbear | May 21, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Cheney has to go to the basement of The AEI to make a speech to a room of maybe 20 people who still care about what he has to say.

The speech itself was grumbling rant made up of straw-men, images of people "burning alive" and "Save My Legacy" dishonesty.

The fact is that Cheney and Bush did not take the threat of Al Qaeda seriously, even when handed a memo warning of an imminent threat that could involve hijackings. I guess alerting the FAA would have been to much trouble?

This man is a miserable failure in every respect.

Posted by: marSF | May 21, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Cheney's approval ratings are up because people know he is powerless.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 21, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

CHENEY'S TRUE MOTIVE: FOMENTING AN ALREADY INCIPIENT COUP D'ETAT?


Do polls really matter if Cheney's intent is to foment a coup d'etat?


The key message implanted by Cheney's speech was repetition of the mantra that Obama's policies have made the nation "less safe."

By painting Obama as what zealots might interpret as a "clear and present danger" to the nation's safety, is Cheney laying an extra-legal foundation for a coup -- with his "leave-behinds" in the "military-security-intel complex" at the vanguard?

The "torture matrix" activated by Bush-Cheney & Co. STILL PERSISTS in powerful quarters of the bureaucracy:


http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | May 21, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't Cheney know he's not running the country anymore? in fact, his party and their policies were discarded by a majority the American voters last November. Clearly Cheney's delusional, thinking that he has anything meaningful to contribute.

Posted by: jvlem | May 21, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

kenpasadena:

The fact that the media uses "Vice President" and "dueling" in the same sentence makes me uncomfortable in the first place.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

WHY ARE THE NETWORKS GIVING CHENEY A PLATFORM?

It is just weird to have a former VP out there openly sabotaging a new administration, and make no mistake about it, that is what Cheney is doing. He is openly attempting to damage or deny this current administration’s ability to craft national security policy. Republicans have a funny way of showing patriotism, I guess. But that's what it is -- attempted sabotage -- treason.

But what is really weird is that they seem to have just given up any pretense that Bush was anything other than an empty suit. Between Dick’s multiple pronouncements, his really odd response on MTP in which he said “I guess the President had been briefed,” and stunts like this speech today, Cheney is basically telling you who the HMFIC for the last eight years was, and he wasn’t a legacy frat boy from Connecticut.

Not that anyone ever suspected any less.

Posted by: drindl | May 21, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

gjkbear:

You PROMISE that the ACLU et al. are not going to try to release them onto American soil? (I am not saying that "Going from one prison to another is a release"). Did you even listen to / read Obama's speech? There is a "5th category" of terrorists who CANNOT receive a trial and cannot be released.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The fact that Obama has to be seen as "dueling" with the former unpopular vice president shows what shakey ground he is on not even 200 days into his new presidency.

Posted by: kenpasadena | May 21, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, your answers are so unconvincing. It doesn't sound like you even believe them. And we can smell Cheney's stench all over you. Tell your Mommy to wash your mouth out with soap.

Posted by: cythera45 | May 21, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Dick Cheney is really a democrat. The more he talks, the more people leave the republican party. Thanks Dick, keep up the good work.

Posted by: kubrickstan | May 21, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - yes, people have escaped from prisons. But many of these detainees have never been tried and many of them were unfortunate enought to just be in the right place at the wrong time or were swept up in a net. Some of them have been held for amost 7 years without having a lawyer, being tried or even being convicted of anything! They are NOT going to be released onto American soil. Going from one prison to another is not a release, is it? They may now finally receive a trial. If they are found innocent, they will be deported back to their home country - 'cause they are hardly legal, right?
People like you just futher the claims of Osama bin Laden who says that Americans hate Muslims.
Whom would I rather have protecting me? Someone who will tell me the truth - not someone who will lie me into a war - who will justify torture; not to find info but to bolster our premise; I wouldn't trust Dick Cheyney as far as I could throw him.

Posted by: gjkbear | May 21, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Dick Cheney's favorite song...

Three Dog Night

Never been to Spain

Well I never been to Spain
But I kinda like the music
Say the ladies are insane there
And they sure know how to use it
The don't abuse it (but i abuse people)
Never gonna lose it (the USA money I stole)
I can't refuse it

Well I never been to England
But I kinda like the Beatles
Well, I headed for Las Vegas
Only made it out to Needles
Can you feel it
It must be real it
Feels so good
Oh, feels so good

Well I never been to heaven
But I been to Oklahoma
Well they tell me I was born there
But I really don't remember
In Oklahoma, not Arizona
What does it matter
What does it matter

Well I never been to Spain
But I kinda like the music
Say the ladies are insane there
And they sure know how to use it
They don't abuse it
Never gonna lose it
I can't refuse it

Well I never been to heaven(Lives in HELL)
But I been to Oklahoma
Well they tell me I was born there(IN HELL)
But I really don't remember
In Oklahoma, not Arizona
What does it matter
What does it matter


Posted by: 1-20-09 | May 21, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

If Cheney is right that even debating national security policies endangers us, shouldn't he just shut up then?

Posted by: cythera45 | May 21, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

wheeljc writes
"The onus of responsibility is on the President. WHERE IS HIS PLAN?"

Admittedly, the President didn't deliver a bound 'plan' with a snappy slogan like "Roadmap for Peace." However, if you bother to read the text of his speech, you might find the answer to your question:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/21/obama_on_national_security_and.html

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 21, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

cythera45:

It's not. Next question?

bsimon1:

None of those prisoners in SuperMax were denied their right to a speedy trial. As I said "escape" is not my biggest concern.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

wheeljc:

Did you notice there seemed to be some problems with the Teleprompter of the United States (I hear that Gov. Palin can handle those just fine ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, then why is your tongue all brown and smelly?

Posted by: cythera45 | May 21, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

It makes sense that Cheney is now inviting another attack. A new terrorist attack would serve Republicans as well as a failure of the efforts to save the American economy.

Somebody should tell Cheney that his party lost the last election. Americans, like the Republican Party, rejected him and his ideas. Someone should explain that this is why Cheney wasn't invited to the convention or to CPAC.

And somebody should also remind Cheney that the American people rejected him in 2000 and, in a time of war, and in an incumbent position, they re-elected him by one of the slimest margins in history in 2004.

This pathetic whining of a loser like Cheney is disgusting.

And I note that Limbaugh is now repeating the lie that Cheney's torture in 2003 was the reason the L.A. plot was thwarted in 2002. Thank God for Republican time machines.

Posted by: MorganaLeFay | May 21, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

JakeD writes
"People HAVE escaped from maximum security prisons."

But there have been no escapees from Supermax prisons. You attempt to obfuscate by ignoring the existence of prisons that are more secure than 'maximum security' prisons.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 21, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

smiling chrissy seems to just be telling us what he so giddily believes to be the case. he's st(r)oking his own ego and trying to make it sound rational with his little favoribility numbers

Posted by: harbinger317 | May 21, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

cythera45:

I haven't at all. Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The onus of responsibility is on the President. WHERE IS HIS PLAN? The teleprompter did not have one this morning. The staging of the speech was great; the words were great; he looked great! BUT, where is the plan?? I am beginning to think that the President may be taking us as a bunch of fools, or he is very shallow. Either way, we may have a problem!!

Posted by: wheeljc | May 21, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

It also does not help Cheney's case that he has been wrong on just about everything he has told us. Examples:

Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were cooperating.

Iraq was still actively pursuing nuclear weapons in 2001.

Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in 2001.

The Iraqis will welcome the US troops with hugs and flowers.

The Iraqi insurgency was in it's last throes in 2003.

Osama bin Laden will be brought to justice.

The US practice of torture has made us safer in today's world.

Great track record, Dick!

Posted by: Lefty_ | May 21, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"Cheney is right all right, to the right of Ghenghis Khan. He is also a moral idiot who soiled our country with his savagery. He should be put on a boat and floated out to sea.

Posted by: cythera45 | May 21, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse
"

****

I was thinking shackled to a post in downtown baghdad. That would be justice.

Posted by: dcp26851 | May 21, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"And, your question for me is ...?"

I don't know why you assume I have one.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 21, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

King -- are we talking about the same Cheyney that no one knew where he was after 9/11? The same Cheyney who shot his friend in the face and then didn't even tell the President or let lawmen do their job for what, 6 hours??? The same Cheyney who had other things to do that he got 5 or 6 deferrments so that he wouldn't have to serve his Country? Responsibility for his actions???

He may be an elder statesman, but I truly believe that his only motive was to provide a link between Al Queda & Iraq - this person who had never participated in a real war; never served a day in the military = the one who during 1st Bush's term said that it would be a disastor to go into Iraq and then couldn't wait until he send soldiers there during Bush Jr.s? That responsible Cheyney?

Posted by: gjkbear | May 21, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

The Guilty always talk the most to try and protect their ego.

YOUR GUILTY DICK!

YOU KILLED AMERICANS FOR PROFIT!

Don't interview this a-hole until he is talking from a jail cell.

Posted by: 1-20-09 | May 21, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, my question is: how far up Dick's savage fundament have you pushed your tongue?

Posted by: cythera45 | May 21, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

clandestinetomcat:

Cheney, by a long shot (unless that's an Italian-made shotgun ; )

Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I pity you sad little creatures who want big daddy Dick to protect you. You are pathetic, cringing cowards just like daddy, who pees himself in terror every day at the thought of facing genuine peril. Of course he fled from the chance to serve in Vietnam. He has no strength whatsoever. Hence all the bluster. I just hope he knows, when he gives all these speeches and interviews, that everything he says can be used against him in a court of law.

Posted by: cythera45 | May 21, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"If I were president Cheney would just vanish into thin air.
Here today, gone tomorrow.
BUT - he will not escape justice. He will stand naked before God, just as we all will. Let him explain away his transgressions then.

Posted by: TOMHERE | May 21, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse
"

****

God wouldn't waste his time on a lowlife pile of human sewage like Dick Cheney. Straight to the inferno for this piece of filth.

Posted by: dcp26851 | May 21, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Part II, I've numbered the points President Obama made about the 'fifth category' detainees. He's comments are numbered and lettered. My opinion appears at the end:


1)this is the toughest issue we will face.
2) We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country... people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.
3) I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people.
4) detention policies cannot be unbounded... my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law.
a) We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category.
b) We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes.
c) We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.
5) I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one.
6) In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man.
7) If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight.
8) And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.


Sounds to me like he has a pretty good handle on the problem. It also sounds like he has a pretty healthy respect on the Constitution; I particularly like the point where he notes that the fate of detainees should not be left to one man. As the President notes, we are a nation of laws. That should be reassuring to citizens of all political persuasions.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 21, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

cythera45 (and bsimon1):

And, your question for me is ...?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Just ask yourself, and be honest.

Who would you rather have protecting your family from those that clearly want all Americans dead?

Obama or Cheney?

Posted by: clandestinetomcat | May 21, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Polls? That's what Democrats and media pimps are all about...the truth be damned.

It's not hard to figure out that ALL the media pimps like you Cillizza from all the liberal media, have had their lips pressed firmly on Obama's butt for more than a year. Yes they have trashed all Journalistic ethics and campaign finance laws and jumped in bed with Obama giving him free info commercials and trashing Bush/Cheney 24/7 The ignorant Obama voters are very vulnerable to your propaganda crapola. End of Story


THANKS AGAIN PRESIDENT BUSH
Yes another attack STOPPED COLD by CIA, FBI, and President Bush's policies that protected ALL Americans after 9/11.
NO ATTACKS after 9/11 when the media pimps were saying it was impossible, only a matter of time. Four radical Muslim Aholes were stopped from blowing up more buildings and killing more Americans JUST YESTERDAY. A plot that was identified and capably handled more that a year ago.
Bush/Cheney-100
Media Pimps- 0

What color Pimp suit are you wearing today Cillizza, the Red or Purple Satin?

Posted by: ekim53 | May 21, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

gjkbear:

People HAVE escaped from maximum security prisons. But the bigger concern is that they will be released to participate in, or otherwise direct, attacks against Americans on our soil.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Cheney is right all right, to the right of Ghenghis Khan. He is also a moral idiot who soiled our country with his savagery. He should be put on a boat and floated out to sea.

Posted by: cythera45 | May 21, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"Dick Cheney is a coward. He is attempting to use politics to influence the Department of Justice. ..................


http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/05/21/cheney-is-afraid-of-the-rule-of-law/

Posted by: glclark4750 | May 21, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse
"

****

Cheney is a coward? 5 deferments from Vietnam....say it ain't so.

The whole lot of them are cowards: Cheney, Rush, Georgie, Gonzo, Rummy, Bill-O-The-Clown, Hannity, etc.....

At least Colin Powell had the courage to come out and admit his faults. It takes courage to admit your mistakes.

Posted by: dcp26851 | May 21, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Cheney's character is so badly flawed that the POTUS was compelled to schedule a speech to try and upstage him. If Cheney doesn't matter why bother? Face it most Americans agreed with Cheney and believe if stakes are high more rigorous methods can and should be employed.

Cillizza must have been one of the popular kids in high school to make such a ridiculous argument that popularity is all that matters. Most of us get beyond that and realize popularity has no bearing on merit.

Posted by: Mary24 | May 21, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk, you're really Liz Cheney, aren't you? Did Daddy come to your bed at night, little girlie? Big sober statesman diddling you under the sheets. Mmm.

Posted by: cythera45 | May 21, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

jaked asks about the 'fifth category'.

Here's an edited exceprt, for those unfamiliar with the term:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/21/obama_on_national_security_and.html

"First, when feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts - courts provided for by the United States Constitution.

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are best tried through Military Commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be effectively presented in federal Courts.

The third category of detainees includes those who we have been ordered released by the courts. ... The United States is a nation of laws, and we must abide by these rulings.

The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country.

Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people."


More to follow; too much text sent the post into moderation/ never-never land.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 21, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

cythera45 (and TOMHERE):

Because Cheney is right. Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

These congress people who are saying essentially "not in our prisons, will we hold terror suspects" are doing their prisons a grave disservice - along with the guards and the wardens. Essentially, they are saying that the warden and the guards are incompetent. Yet, some of these same prisons have held the most heinous of prisoners - the first WTC bombers (they too, were terrorists, were they not?)- Timothy McVeigh, Charles Manson, The man who pulled a man's brain out and ate some of it... They also safely held Son of Sam, and Ted Bundy. Now are we saying that these men are sooo bad that they are worse than anyone in America who created atrocities against their fellow American? That is just plain STUPID! If it is one thing America is good at, it is building prisons and keeping people locked up in them. If they are that worried, There is always Alcatraz.
Cheyney is just, as always trying to spread fear and hate - it is what he does best.

Posted by: gjkbear | May 21, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

biggirl90:

I didn't say you said that -- I asked you a QUESTION -- do you disagree with Obama and think that they should be released anyhow?

(note: the QUESTION MARK "?")

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Why would anyone listen to Cheney? He is a monster from the pit. He should be hunted like a dog in the street.

Posted by: cythera45 | May 21, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor--platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way. This sentence was revealing: "On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004." "Opposed the release"? Doesn't he mean "decided not to permit the release"? He's president. He's not just a guy participating in a debate. But he's more comfortable as a debater, not as someone who takes responsibility for decisions.

Cheney's is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman. He's sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 21, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

If I were president Cheney would just vanish into thin air.
Here today, gone tomorrow.
BUT - he will not escape justice. He will stand naked before God, just as we all will. Let him explain away his transgressions then.

Posted by: TOMHERE | May 21, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I really don't believe this. Thug Sean Hannity once said that questioning the President on foreign policy during a time of war was treason.

Why can't we just send Cheney to the gallows?

Posted by: dcp26851 | May 21, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

That's not what I said Jake. Just another finger pointing at the previous administration's cluster-f*ck that they left behind.

Posted by: biggirl90 | May 21, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

onestring:

I think that Cheney's speech was better than Obama's.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Cheney outed a covert CIA agent working on Iranian WMDs named Valerie Plame Wilson, and he belongs in prison.

Further, his ideas would NOT be any better if another messenger delivered them.

Richard B. Cheney is in full jury-influence mode flapping his jaws on TV but it isn't working.

CHENEY, RUMSFELD, GONZALES, YOO, BYBEE, ADDINGTON, FEITH, BREMMER ALL BELONG IN THE HAGUE FOR TORTURE.

Posted by: onestring | May 21, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

dbitt:

I was referring to the ACLU, not Dingy Harry.

biggirl90:

So, you DISAGREE with Obama and think that they should be released?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Cheney told us the Iraq war would cost $50-$60 billion, we’d be greeted as liberators, and the insurgency was in their last throes. . . The list has no end. How many times has he been correct? His sole purpose now is shaping his legacy and he has nothing to lose by using his current tact.

Posted by: GBush08 | May 21, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Moreover, Cheney just offers America more false choices, or fake choices. The choice is not between torture or another terrorist attack. They tortured to extract false confessions about a non-existent Iraq-al Qaeda connection. The American people rejected Bush and Cheney's worldview because it does not reflect any world anyone lives in.

Posted by: osullivanc1 | May 21, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I believe Cheney has been proven right on key issues which is why his approval rating is actually ticking upwards. My guess is the more Cheney speaks, (and is proven accurate), the higher this rating will become.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/21/cnn-poll-favorable-opinion-of-dick-cheney-on-the-rise/

But ratings aside, an unpopular opinion does not equate to a wrong opinion. It is much easier to make a straw man out of Cheney and pound the heck out him, then to admit the rosy obama "hope" rhetoric will end in disaster.

Posted by: playfair109
**************
How has Cheney been proven right about ANYTHING, playfair?
If anything, the more we learn, the more we find out how wrong he was.
Admit it-- the guy is deeply unpopular not because he's gruff or surly (which he is); he's unpopular because he's the face of an awful lot of bad stuff that was done in our name.
But hey, let's keep him talking. The more he tries to keep the Bush era "fear is all we have" idea alive, the better the Democrats will do.

Posted by: dbitt | May 21, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Dick Cheney is a coward. He is attempting to use politics to influence the Department of Justice. ..................


http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/05/21/cheney-is-afraid-of-the-rule-of-law/

Posted by: glclark4750 | May 21, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

jayceecarmel:

What part of "I am not 'hoping' for another attack" aren't you understanding?

unchurch1:

McCain would NEVER have risked the release of those TERRORISTS into the United States (see the difference?).

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Let's hope Cheney keeps running his contorted mouth - it can only be bad for Limbaugh and his Republican Party.

Posted by: coloradodog | May 21, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

It's not often that we can get the poster boy for non-Christian activities to put himself on the tube like this. Children look! This is how NOT to be a follower of Jesus.

Posted by: john_from_bama | May 21, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Classic60:

If McCain was in the White House now, he surely wouldn't have announced GTMO closing and risk the release of TERRORISTS into the United States.

Posted by: JakeD
************
Who said anything about releasing terrorists? This is a dumb straw man that Republicans float to keep their fear strategy alive. Nobody is "releasing" these people into the US, no matter how many mishandled press conferences Harry Reid gives.

And if John McCain were in the White House, we'd have a lot more to worry about than whether our prison system could handle 240 prisoners.

Posted by: dbitt | May 21, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

What do YOU think about Obama's "5th category" of detainees who cannot be tried but cannot be released?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 11:56 AM

I think if we had not tortured them, they could have been tried. Many of the "suspected" terrorists in gitmo were just innocent people rounded up for reward money we offered. THAT'S why we have laws about proof. Innocent until proven guilty.

Posted by: biggirl90 | May 21, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I believe Cheney has been proven right on key issues which is why his approval rating is actually ticking upwards. My guess is the more Cheney speaks, (and is proven accurate), the higher this rating will become.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/21/cnn-poll-favorable-opinion-of-dick-cheney-on-the-rise/

But ratings aside, an unpopular opinion does not equate to a wrong opinion. It is much easier to make a straw man out of Cheney and pound the heck out him, then to admit the rosy obama "hope" rhetoric will end in disaster.

Posted by: playfair109 | May 21, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse


I think the amount of press coverage that Dick Cheney gets today is a dis-service. The man simply says the same things over and over again. It's been heard. It's time for the former VP to shut up.

Posted by: kenhyde | May 21, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Cheney lied, deceived and hid for 8 years, who wants to listen to his crap now. All of sudden he wants to defend the CIA, after blaming them for the failures of the Iraq info. He also outed Valerie Plame.

Posted by: shag11 | May 21, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

JakeD says:

If McCain was in the White House now, he surely wouldn't have announced GTMO closing and risk the release of TERRORISTS into the United States.

Except McCain also said he would close GTMO. He might not have, but he said it.

Posted by: unchurch1 | May 21, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

The Cheney-Bush team (in that order) have done more damage to American than most realize.

The photographs of those few abusing Iraqi detainees was in line with the Administration specifically after the US general in charge of GITMO moved onto Iraq. That one strategic error in generalizing all detainees as 9/11 type terrorist did more to kill US troopers in Iraq than most know.

Cheney is attempting to build his political and life history around the "grand protector" of American...yet as most know, the President's morning reports continually emphasized threats from Bin Laden..yet nothing was done.

Remember, Cheney remains reaping millions from Halliburton/KBR from their collective contract work in Iraq and Afghanistan..and I might add directly responsible for the electrical deaths do to faulty and improperly install electrical components of three (3) US servicemen.

Cheney and those buffoons at AEI "sold" the war in Iraq to the American people and we as a people will pay a heavy price for decades to come.

Posted by: LTC-11A | May 21, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

"Cheney brought up 9-11 25 times..."

Of course he did. He's using Rudy G's playbook.

I bet you heard a lot about Pearl Harbor as a justification for locking up Japanese-Americans in internment camps.

And I feel confident the National Socialists used the Reichstag Fire as justification for beating up their political opponents.

Now think of all the wrongs that have been done in the name of 9-11.

Posted by: Samson151 | May 21, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Wow, you people are dumb.

Posted by: izaraurora | May 21, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Cheney cannot win in my view. I base this on one suspicion, which he confirms every time he opens his mouth: he hopes fervently and passionately that terrorists will strike during Obama's watch. And that, my friends, is the sickest thing I've ever witnessed in politics.

Posted by: jayceecarmel | May 21, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Chris you confuse personal popularity with substantive issues. Cheney is not a warm cuddly type of person and will never have the type of cult following Obama has. But he is well respected and I do not believe their is any othet american who knows more about National Security than Dick Cheney. Churchill was also reviled by his countrymen in the 1920's, but of course all of that changed when he was proven right about the Nazi threat. I gurantee you, if we have another terrorist attack in the USA, the american people will want Dick Cheny as President not Barry(give the terrorists their rights) Obama.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 21, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Then why was Cheney soooooo wrong about soooooo many things if he's soooooo experienced? (WMD, greeted as liberators, Saddam and ALQ, I could go on...... and on..... and on) Cheney himself said in 1998 it would be a huge mistake to invade Iraq, what's changed? (And don't say 9/11, we already know Iraq had nothing to do with that)

Posted by: PeterPamZ | May 21, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

dee5:

What do YOU think about Obama's "5th category" of detainees who cannot be tried but cannot be released?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Why does the media continue to give such extraordinary coverage to the rantings of the unprincipled, unscrupulous, and unpatriotic former vice president?

President Obama is right on the issues and right on the approach to defending our nation: we can't be moral leaders in the world if we authorize torture and deceit as cornerstones of our national policy.

Chaney, Limbaugh, Steele, and Gingrich are are the gruesome four horsemen of the GOP's apocalyptic last days. They represent the greed, corruption and arrogance of the '70's, '80's, and '90's and are effectively leading it into the scrap heap of history.

Long may they ride into ruin.

Posted by: dee5 | May 21, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that no current Republicans are standing up for the GOP Bush policies on counter trerorism?
We get Dick Cheney growling for the cameras on "necessity,' and we get that paragon of virtue, Karl Rove, on Fox News waving a pocket copy of the constitution. What a sleazy prop.

Posted by: jmf3210 | May 21, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Why is it that no current Republicans are standing up for the GOP Bush policies on counter trerorism?
We get Dick Cheney growling for the cameras on "necessity,' and we get that paragon of virtue, Karl Rove, on Fox News waving a pocket copy of the constitution. What a sleazy prop.

Posted by: jmf3210 | May 21, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

What do YOU think about Obama's "5th category" of detainees who cannot be tried but cannot be released?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Classic60:

If McCain was in the White House now, he surely wouldn't have announced GTMO closing and risk the release of TERRORISTS into the United States.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Look, I am not "hoping" for another attack -- I actually hope that enough was done during the Bush-Cheney Administration to prevent another attack regardless of what Obama does -- however, there's no doubt that Cheney's message is far more likely to resonate with the American people if Obama's policies lead directly to another attack (or worse).

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

That's called rhetoric. Cheney lacks the ethos, pathos, and even logos to effectively pull it off.

-----

Message matters in politics but only if the messenger is credible.

Posted by: JohninMpls | May 21, 2009 11:51 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes writes
"Churchill was also reviled by his countrymen in the 1920's, but of course all of that changed when he was proven right about the Nazi threat."


You ought to look up Churchill's position on torture sometime, you might be surprised.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 21, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Hey Chaney: Shutup! We haven't heard from you in eight years and now you are all over the media promoting that deadbeat Bush. Why didn't you do this during the election? Maybe your other loser buddy McCain would be in the White House now. Republicans are sure a bunch of LOSERS!!!

Posted by: Classic60 | May 21, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Why am I getting the impression that members of the right ( now led by Cheney?) who have been waving pom-poms for the failure of America, are now hoping for another attack as if THAT would somehow bestow credibility?

Since this discussion resolves around national security, I'm wondering what threat could be greater than internal forces that look to politically benefit from a terrorist attack?

Posted by: BellsBlu2 | May 21, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

tallertapas311:

He wouldn't have mentioned it so many times if you guys had learned the lessons from that day. After Obama's speech, though, I wonder what the liberals will say about his "5th category" of detainees who cannot be tried but cannot be released. This should get interesting. LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

"If we get attacked again, maybe then people will finally realize who was right."

You mean the people who allowed us to be attacked on 9/11? Those people were right? About what, jakey?

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 21, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Cheney is in it to shape the Bush/Cheney revisionist history story and hopefully keep there buns out of Leavenworth. Obama who inherited this mess from Bush/Cheney is trying to keep American's safe and restore our image in the world.

Posted by: Woodstocknative | May 21, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Cheney mentions 9/11 25 times in his speech.

Fear mongering at its best!!

I guess were either with Cheney or against him.

America is with Obama

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 21, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

cheney told us we would be greated as liberators, that he personally knew where the WMD were, that he had evidence of a qaeda saddam link. He told us he never met Jon Edwards, he said there was no insurgnecy in Iraq, he claimed no influence over no bid contracts to Halliburton (whose subsidiary KBR was found culpable yesterday for faulty wiring in 90% of the electrical work they performed, errors that electrocuted at least 3 soldiers) he had no knowledge of outing a CIA undercover operative, global warming is not real...

you get the point. If cheney told me water was wet I would stick my hand in some to make sure that was still true.

AS many note cheney has an ulterior motive for his vocal outing - he is trying to make sure he does not go to jail and he is setting things up for the potentiality of an attack, at which point he and the neocon scum will point fingers at the President, ignoring that 9/11 happened right under their own noses and hoping we will forget that inconvenient truth. He is also hoping people will forget that it is the policy failures of his administration that are directly responsible for the fact that qaeda still exists and is just as strong as it was in 2001.

Posted by: John1263 | May 21, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Plus, Americans know Cheney's motives are tainted by personal involvement. Obama's motives could be called political but a perception he's morally right would counter that. Anyway, this is literally no contest: It's reality.

Posted by: jhbyer | May 21, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

For the record, Cheney announced his speech on "Keeping America Safe" BEFORE Obama did, not the other way around. So, the White House is the one running scared on this issue. I think Cheney's speech was better on substance, regardless of the popularity contest. If we get attacked again, maybe then people will finally realize who was right.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2009 11:37 AM | Report abuse

This represents an ongoing, yet interesting dynamic:

President Obama, The man who refuses to look back, and Former VP Dick Cheney, the man who refuses to look at all.

Cheney is insisting on imposing his will on the current president, as well as the people of the U.S.

However, why should that even be possible, when in point of fact, bush and Cheney's presidency and vice presidency respectively can only be termed as "FAILED"?

Posted by: BellsBlu2 | May 21, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes, no one outside of the small and shrinking Neocon circle believes that Cheney is an expert in national security. To the contrary, an overwhelming majority of security experts recognize that Cheney and Bush made global security much worse by their actions. Cheney was ultimately both incompetent and criminal in the execution of his office.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | May 21, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse


REPUBLICAN'Ts

Posted by: lunetrick | May 21, 2009 11:32 AM | Report abuse

so Cheney has been running around for what, three months spewing garbage, and just now Cilliza cites polls showing how unpopular and discreditted he is? What took so long Chris? Or were you stuck in the beltway media mentality that controversy sells, and to go along with the "culture of constant campaigning" laid out by Republican Scott McClellan in his "What Happened" book. No wonder the newspaper industry is in trouble...headlining every word of a very unpopular FORMER VP doesn't exactly lend to credibility.

Posted by: katem1 | May 21, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

It is appalling that the media continue to give a platform to Cheney, an embittered failure now out of power. Cheney has no audience, except for the Beltway media.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | May 21, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes wrote: "he is well respected"

Among a tiny minority of die-hard neocons, perhaps. But to most of American, his reputation ranges from unevenly credible to downright toxic.

Posted by: nodebris | May 21, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Chris you confuse personal popularity with substantive issues. Cheney is not a warm cuddly type of person and will never have the type of cult following Obama has. But he is well respected and I do not believe their is any othet american who knows more about National Security than Dick Cheney. Churchill was also reviled by his countrymen in the 1920's, but of course all of that changed when he was proven right about the Nazi threat. I gurantee you, if we have another terrorist attack in the USA, the american people will want Dick Cheny as President not Barry(give the terrorists their rights) Obama.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 21, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Folks, looks like Cheney's 2012 Presidential campaign is already in a full swing!

Posted by: TalkingHead1 | May 21, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

After all the damage that Cheney and his neocon friends have done they still have a platform to spew their garbage.

Why is there no accountability in this country?

Posted by: David77 | May 21, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

"Obama's message is far more likely to resonate with the American people because they are predisposed to like and believe him."

Do you blame 'em?

Also, Cheney is defending torture. You can make excuses for torture -- summon up 9-11, that sort of trickery -- but it's still not defensible as a national policy.

OK, maybe in Myanmar, but not in the US.

Posted by: Samson151 | May 21, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse


Will Cheney be sitting in his wheel chair dressed in a black hat and coat like at the inauguration?

Like so much else that used to pass for etiquette in politics, the idea that former administration officials should STFU and let the new guy run things is part of history.

I hope Republicans realize this strategy can be aimed back at them, some day in the future, when they finally win elections again. And who will that Democrat be, I wonder which former President will do the best job of taking a sitting Republican to task? Mmmmm, let's look in my crystal ball...why it's none other than...Barack Obama!

You've got to be idiot to pick a fight with this guy. Just sayin'.

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | May 21, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Cheney? Cheney is Obama's future. A pair of thicker headed fools, intractable and inflexible plodders and clodhoppers wold be hard to find. The real problem is the lifeless minions these (and similar) jerks attract. At their best, they are little better than (opposing) howling mobs.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 21, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

And yet, the media will keep giving Cheney play, despite his disasterous tenure leading this country. He didn't want to talk to the American people when he was PRESIDENT - now he can't seem to shut up. Will he EVER go away?

Posted by: paulaann25 | May 21, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 21, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Nice piece Chris but think you missed the point ...

Cheney's goal is to taint the jury pool. He doesn't care about message stickiness or winning the debate - just about staying out of jail.

Posted by: mateosf | May 21, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Cheney is still trying to avoid an indictment for his part in the Torture Regime. (It can't happen in America, can it?)

Posted by: patriot76 | May 21, 2009 11:04 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company