Cheney’s Speech on Bush Era Security Policies

[bytor2112]

By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Former Vice-President Cheney is spot on IMHO. This link contains the transcript of his excellent speech.

[the Ogre]

Former Vice-President Cheney is spot on IMHO. This link contains the transcript of his excellent speech.

I think Cheney's speech was just as skewed Obama's speech here.

I think Cheney is positioning himself for a run at the presidency. I think the Republican Party would be fools to not consider him. But, it things don't change, and they always do, and Cheney wins the GOP nomination, I will be voting for my first Democrat for President regardless of his opinions on abortion or veterans rights.

[bytor2112]

I love Dick Cheney and greatly admire and respect him. He will not, however, run for President and I would never vote for a Democrat......unless they suddenly became advocates for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense and opposed abortion on demand, etc.

[the Ogre]

I love Dick Cheney and greatly admire and respect him. He will not, however, run for President and I would never vote for a Democrat......unless they suddenly became advocates for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense and opposed abortion on demand, etc.

Good decision, but the GOP only seems to to support two of those four (and the abortion option weakly, Bush's abortion position is one of his few redeeming qualities). People have told me I need to listen to Beck. I do, but even he would say the GOP only recently seems interested in small government (ie.. all his anti-progressive rants). The GOP is progressive (no child left behind). If you want real conservatism that is a little respectful, you will not in the GOP right now.

I however only support three of the things you indicate. I am not convinced small government is the right direction any longer.

[bytor2112]

Good decision, but the GOP only seems to to support two of those four (and the abortion option weakly, Bush's abortion position is one of his few redeeming qualities). People have told me I need to listen to Beck. I do, but even he would say the GOP only recently seems interested in small government (ie.. all his anti-progressive rants). The GOP is progressive (no child left behind). If you want real conservatism that is a little respectful, you will not in the GOP right now.

I however only support three of the things you indicate. I am not convinced small government is the right direction any longer.

I am a registered Republican, but only because I believe a vote for a third party candidate is a waste and the best way to affect change in the Republican party is from within. I am really libertarian in my views...small l not the party.

[Traveler]

I think Cheney's speech was just as skewed Obama's speech here.

I think Cheney is positioning himself for a run at the presidency. I think the Republican Party would be fools to not consider him. But, it things don't change, and they always do, and Cheney wins the GOP nomination, I will be voting for my first Democrat for President regardless of his opinions on abortion or veterans rights.

Just wondering – would you feel the same if between now and the next presidential election there was a terrorist attack on US soil that killed 10 million or more civilians?

The Traveler

[the Ogre]

Just wondering – would you feel the same if between now and the next presidential election there was a terrorist attack on US soil that killed 10 million or more civilians?

The Traveler

Would I vote for Cheney? No, I would not. Would I feel differently than I do now in the face of cataclysmic terrorism? Yes. I moderated my politics after 9/11 recognizing the futility of typical conservatism. I would change my mind on a dime, but I am sure I still would not vote for Dick Cheney. I do not 100% buy the Bush/Cheney administration attempted to stay to the high road. I think Cheney navigated the US into the position of international pariah or was directly involved with it. I think he would do worse as president.

[Traveler]

Would I vote for Cheney? No, I would not. Would I feel differently than I do now in the face of cataclysmic terrorism? Yes. I moderated my politics after 9/11 recognizing the futility of typical conservatism. I would change my mind on a dime, but I am sure I still would not vote for Dick Cheney. I do not 100% buy the Bush/Cheney administration attempted to stay to the high road. I think Cheney navigated the US into the position of international pariah or was directly involved with it. I think he would do worse as president.

Who did you agree with following 9/11? The Saudi Royal Family? Just so you know where I stand - I do not think we will make any advances in ending mid-east terrorism while the Saudi Royal Family is in power.

The Traveler

[FunkyTown]

Who did you agree with following 9/11? The Saudi Royal Family? Just so you know where I stand - I do not think we will make any advances in ending mid-east terrorism while the Saudi Royal Family is in power.

The Traveler

I agreed with Bush following 9/11. Attacking the nation harbouring them was the only possible recourse. However, Iraq was definitely NOT the nation that attacked you, nor was it harbouring the terrorists who did so. In fact, the dictator who ruled that land hated the same religious fanatics that attacked you because he was far more secular.

[Traveler]

I agreed with Bush following 9/11. Attacking the nation harbouring them was the only possible recourse. However, Iraq was definitely NOT the nation that attacked you, nor was it harbouring the terrorists who did so. In fact, the dictator who ruled that land hated the same religious fanatics that attacked you because he was far more secular.

But the Saudi Royal family was in great danger because of Sudam and Iraq. Interesting that Iran is not Arabic and is not Sunni but has been most careful not the cross the Saudi Royals. Iraq will remain unstable because the Saudi Royals cannot tolerate the Shiite majority taking a majority control of Iraq. Also keep in mind that the Saudi Royals control the opium trade in Afghanistan.

The Traveler

[the Ogre]

Who did you agree with following 9/11? The Saudi Royal Family? Just so you know where I stand - I do not think we will make any advances in ending mid-east terrorism while the Saudi Royal Family is in power.

The Traveler

Sorry I missed this post. I agree. I do not think they are our allies, rather I think they act in their own self interest in ME affairs making sure they stay on top with as little spending on their military as possible.

But the Saudi Royal family was in great danger because of Sudam and Iraq. Interesting that Iran is not Arabic and is not Sunni but has been most careful not the cross the Saudi Royals. Iraq will remain unstable because the Saudi Royals cannot tolerate the Shiite majority taking a majority control of Iraq. Also keep in mind that the Saudi Royals control the opium trade in Afghanistan.

The Traveler

I agree with this 100%.

I think Bush's loyalties here were questionable.

[FunkyTown]

So... You agree that attacking Iraq was stupid and they had nothing to do with 9/11? o.O Because that's what it sounds like, Traveler.

If so, then we have come to an accord. :)