| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:41 am Post subject: Cheney's Revenge |
 |
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704022804575042112185849380.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
| Quote: |
Dick Cheney is not the most popular of politicians, but when he offered a harsh assessment of the Obama Administration's approach to terrorism last May, his criticism stung�so much that the President gave a speech the same day that was widely seen as a direct response. Though neither man would admit it, eight months later political and security realities are forcing Mr. Obama's antiterror policies ever-closer to the former Vice President's.
In fact, the President's changes in antiterror policy have never been as dramatic as he or his critics have advertised. His supporters on the left have repeatedly howled when the Justice Department quietly went to court and offered the same legal arguments the Bush Administration made, among them that the President has the power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely without charge. He has also ramped up drone strikes against al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan.
However, the Administration has tried to break from its predecessors on several big antiterror issues, and it is on those that it is suffering the humiliation of having to walk back from its own righteous declarations. This is Dick Cheney's revenge. |
The same people who were howling 2 years ago about Guantanamo are strangely quiet now. The people who criticized Bush's anti-terror policies seem perfectly fine with said policies when Obama is in office. What is interesting to me is that none of the major news organizations have reported anything related to Guantanamo since last year when Obama declared he would shut it down in 1 year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cheney did a great job at breaking precedents. The administration decided waterboarding was okay; it can now be defended by Conservatives and has a legitimacy behind it - "A President ordered this so it can't be against the law!". The same is true about Guantanamo and somewhat with military tribunals and the rest of the methods dealing with the 'war on terror'. That phrase itself produces legitimacy - it's a war!
This is the real damage Cheney created. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On Oct 29, 2007, bacasper wrote: |
| You could not fit a sliver of paper in between the ideologies of Dick Cheney and Barack Obama. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
Cheney did a great job at breaking precedents. The administration decided waterboarding was okay; it can now be defended by Conservatives and has a legitimacy behind it - "A President ordered this so it can't be against the law!". The same is true about Guantanamo and somewhat with military tribunals and the rest of the methods dealing with the 'war on terror'. That phrase itself produces legitimacy - it's a war!
This is the real damage Cheney created. |
Is this supposed to be an excuse as to why Obama is continuing to do the same things? (and even expanding upon them)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChopChaeJoe
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Obama is a rascal and a fake liberal. Hope and change were currencies he needed to buy the ticket, now he doesn't give a damn. He and W. will be in a dead heat for the worst presdient of the modern era. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's what i'm guessing. When Obama was sworn into office, he got the big picture as far as intelligence, anti-terrorism, and protecting America. Maybe he got some special briefing from the intelligence heads. Maybe the leaders of a secret society told him. Who knows.
The fact of the matter is that something happened between campaigning and becoming President that had Obama reevaluate his view about Anti-terrorism.
In my opinion, I think Obama was sincere about all his promises to combat terrorism using different methods. Then, when he got into office, he got a reality check and realized he must stay the course to protect America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| Cheney did a great job at breaking precedents.... |
Is this supposed to be an excuse as to why Obama is continuing to do the same things? (and even expanding upon them)... |
'Excuse' has connotations; it's a reason. He is under political pressure to continue Republican policies. Cheney produced a normalisation of certain policies that should never have existed.
However, justice and human rights shouldn't be decided by polls, so he's really a captive of America's politics instead of intentionally continuing these policies. Would he have introduced Guantanamo, or extraordinary rendition etc? That's a more important question with regards to culpability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| The fact of the matter is that something happened between campaigning and becoming President that had Obama reevaluate his view about Anti-terrorism. |
Yes, and that something was that he won the election. 
In every election, we see winners break the promises they made to get elected. Ho hum.
What gets me are the people who are shocked  by the same deja vu all over again, again, and again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| Cheney did a great job at breaking precedents.... |
Is this supposed to be an excuse as to why Obama is continuing to do the same things? (and even expanding upon them)... |
'Excuse' has connotations; it's a reason. He is under political pressure to continue Republican policies. Cheney produced a normalisation of certain policies that should never have existed.
However, justice and human rights shouldn't be decided by polls, so he's really a captive of America's politics instead of intentionally continuing these policies. Would he have introduced Guantanamo, or extraordinary rendition etc? That's a more important question with regards to culpability. |
Oh really? Obama's a "captive"? In other words you're casting him as the victim now, and none of it is his fault? 
American presidents (both Democrat and Republican) have been working for the banking establishment for decades, but Obama is under no more (or less) "pressure" than Bush ever was. Your attempt to rationalize (ie. spin) it is seriously laughable. Full-blown apologetics is all that it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Imagine 9/11 happened on Obama's watch; maybe he wouldn't have implemented the policies at all. Curreently, Obama is operating in an environment where these policies are already accepted. He is now experiencing pressure internally (from his DoD etc) and externally (Republicans, polling) forcing him to keep (extend) certain policies - ones that would not have existed without Cheney/Bush.
Why did you mention banking? Do you understand my point, you didn't show comprehension of what I was saying? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Imagine 9/11 happened on Obama's watch; maybe he wouldn't have implemented the policies at all. Curreently, Obama is operating in an environment where these policies are already accepted. He is now experiencing pressure internally (from his DoD etc) and externally (Republicans, polling) forcing him to keep (extend) certain policies - ones that would not have existed without Cheney/Bush. |
Lame excuses and "what ifs" don't interest me. Your attempt at spin isn't even good. "Imagine" Obama magically went back in time and succeeded Hitler (who incidentally was also good at making speeches  ) and continued murdering Jews because "the precedent had already been set". Obviously the logic wouldn't bear this out as being morally defensible. So please stop insulting everyone's intelligence with that ridiculous line of reasoning.
| Quote: |
| Why did you mention banking? Do you understand my point, you didn't show comprehension of what I was saying? |
Because just like Bush and Cheney, Obama and his entire administration are working for the globalist banking establishment. Were you not aware of this easily verifiable fact? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
This thread is about the reasons why Obama is continuing Cheney's anti-terror policies. I've laid out an argument about why those policies exist in the first place and why Obama is continuing them. I've also pointed out that Obama may never have initiated these policies and this is Cheney's real legacy.
You haven't properly refuted my argument and you're trying to derail into your favorite subject of banking. Discussing with you isn't very fun or informative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChopChaeJoe
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No one is forcing obama to do anything, he's the most powerful man in the world. He's not a man of character. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
This thread is about the reasons why Obama is continuing Cheney's anti-terror policies. I've laid out an argument about why those policies exist in the first place and why Obama is continuing them. I've also pointed out that Obama may never have initiated these policies and this is Cheney's real legacy.
You haven't properly refuted my argument and you're trying to derail into your favorite subject of banking. Discussing with you isn't very fun or informative. |
All you've done is give lame excuses and apologetics for Obama, and you weren't even particularly creative at doing so. I then easily refuted you by pointing out how completely flawed your line of reasoning is.
It's not even worth "discussing" it with you any further. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChopChaeJoe
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Visitorq, you set up a ridiculous strawman, you did not prove or disprove anything. Then you went off on a weird banking tangent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
