Dick Cheney's Rebuttal

Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday leveled his harshest indictment yet of President Barack Obama’s approach to the war on terror, saying the president’s efforts to dismantle Bush-era policies have left the nation dangerously exposed to another attack.

“If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise,” Cheney said. “But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed.”

You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy,”Cheney said. “There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance. “

He also says those who call Bush interrogation practices torture — as Obama has — are people who engage in “contrived indignation and phony moralizing on the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.”

Read more.

Some excellent points by Cheney.

"I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program," Cheney added later in the speech. "The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do."

Link

^ I watched this today and thought that it was great. Cheney flat out told it like it was. This administration tells a different story/speech depending on what group or who they are talking to and absolutely have no backbone.
Should Obama want to please France, let him take his act there and run for president. (and please take Biden and Pelosi along with him).

Are you guys kidding us? You honestly belive what Cheney has to say?
This article puts it better than I can.

Send Him Back to the Bunker!

Quote :

Obama's speech did exactly that. He spelled out his logic, backed up his talking points with facts, and put forth a policy grounded—at least in his view—not just in lofty ideals but also in hardheaded assessments of national security. Those who disagree with his conclusions could come away at least knowing where their paths diverged—what claims they'd need to challenge in mounting their opposition.

Cheney, on the other hand, built a case on straw men, red herrings, and lies. In short, his speech was classic Dick Cheney, with all the familiar scowls and scorn intact. The Manichean worldview, which Cheney advanced and enforced while in office, was on full display. After justifying "enhanced interrogation methods," as part of the Bush administration's "comprehensive strategy" in the wake of 9/11—and noting that the next seven and a half years saw no follow-on attack—he said this:
So we're left to draw one of two conclusions, and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event … and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort.
This is a blatant evasion. The debate—or one of the debates—is, in fact, over whether or not the war on terror required "tough interrogations," as Cheney called them. Does he believe—should anyone else believe—that removing one chunk of this strategy would cause the whole edifice to topple? If these interrogations are so essential, why did President Bush stop them in 2004? And why haven't we been attacked since?

Audra Barkley wrote:

Are you guys kidding us? You honestly belive what Cheney has to say?
This article puts it better than I can.

Send Him Back to the Bunker!

Quote :

Obama's speech did exactly that. He spelled out his logic, backed up his talking points with facts, and put forth a policy grounded—at least in his view—not just in lofty ideals but also in hardheaded assessments of national security. Those who disagree with his conclusions could come away at least knowing where their paths diverged—what claims they'd need to challenge in mounting their opposition.

Cheney, on the other hand, built a case on straw men, red herrings, and lies. In short, his speech was classic Dick Cheney, with all the familiar scowls and scorn intact. The Manichean worldview, which Cheney advanced and enforced while in office, was on full display. After justifying "enhanced interrogation methods," as part of the Bush administration's "comprehensive strategy" in the wake of 9/11—and noting that the next seven and a half years saw no follow-on attack—he said this:
So we're left to draw one of two conclusions, and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event … and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort.
This is a blatant evasion. The debate—or one of the debates—is, in fact, over whether or not the war on terror required "tough interrogations," as Cheney called them. Does he believe—should anyone else believe—that removing one chunk of this strategy would cause the whole edifice to topple? If these interrogations are so essential, why did President Bush stop them in 2004? And why haven't we been attacked since?

Ah, Slate Magazine.. A real intelligent news source... Right up there with The Enquirer.. Find me an article about how much military experience Obama has and what he knows, if anything, about fighting wars..

Audra Barkley wrote:

Are you guys kidding us? You honestly belive what Cheney has to say?

I find this really funny, especially when I see and hear what Nancy Pelosi, VP Joe Biden and even President Obama himself has to say about just about anything ... Oh, the irony.

Lucas McCain wrote:

.. Find me an article about how much military experience Obama has and what he knows, if anything, about fighting wars..

You got that right Lucas. Should that one exist, it would have to be in the short story/fiction department at the local comic book shop.

Lucas McCain wrote:

Ah, Slate Magazine.. A real intelligent news source... Right up there with The Enquirer.. Find me an article about how much military experience Obama has and what he knows, if anything, about fighting wars..

Again, since it isn't Faux News, you don't like the source.

Can you find me an article about how much military experience Bush had? Please don't waste our time with his National Guard position his daddy got for him, I mean real military experience.

Audra Barkley wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

Ah, Slate Magazine.. A real intelligent news source... Right up there with The Enquirer.. Find me an article about how much military experience Obama has and what he knows, if anything, about fighting wars..

Again, since it isn't Faux News, you don't like the source.

Can you find me an article about how much military experience Bush had? Please don't waste our time with his National Guard position his daddy got for him, I mean real military experience.

ANY experience at all would be more than Obama has.. Question: Why do liberals always answer a question with a question? Why can't they just answer the question asked??

They have no answers with substance. They cannot get over their HATRED of the Bush admin. Hatred reveals few facts and most liberals use it as their base in every argument.