Comments for Former Vice President Cheney's speech at AEI

Former Vice President Cheney's speech at AEI

Thu, 21 May 2009 08:10:06 -0600

As prepared for delivery - it will probably change in response to President Obama's speech, as the former Veep's speech follows the President's.Thank you all very much, and Arthur, thank you for that introduction. It’s good to be back at AEI, where we have many friends. Lynne is one of your longtime scholars, and I’m looking forward to spending more time here myself as a returning trustee. What happened was, they were looking for a new member of the board of trustees, and they asked me to head up the search committee. I first came to AEI after serving at...

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-05-26

Tue, 26 May 2009 08:35:31 -0600

I would like to know what "recruitment tool" Obama and his ilk think compelled an estimated 20,000+ Islamist jihadists to travel to Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan during the 1990's to learn how to kill Americans and Westerners? This was their thanks to the US during the Pax Clintona after we'd freed Muslim Kuwait from Saddam, prevented his seizure of the Muslim Holy Lands of Saudia Arabia, our support for Muslims in Chechnya, and our actions in the Balkans to save Muslims from Serb Orthodox Christians?

I can tell them:

They flocked to OBL's camps because they were angry that US forces were "occupying" the Muslim Holy Lands in Saudi Arabia.

>> Why were US forces in Saudi Arabia?

Because we needed to base them there to "contain" Saddam Hussein.

>> What was the best way to eliminate the need to "contain" Saddam after 12 years and umpteen worthless UN resolutions and failed diplomatic and economic sanctions from all the beneficiaries of Saddam's corrupt Oil For Food program?

Get rid of him and effect regime change in Iraq.

>> Done.

Comment from Kevin Frei on 2009-05-26

Tue, 26 May 2009 07:46:09 -0600

The first thing to note in the President’s much heralded national security speech is that he completely failed to detail his “Plan” to deal with Gitmo’s unlawful combatants. There was and currently is NO PLAN. Most people would assume that at least some thought would have been given by the President’s advisors to constructions of such a plan, as it a centerpiece of his election campaign AND also the subject of one of President Obama’s first Executive Orders. The President in his haste to deliver on his campaign promise the close Gitmo that he forgot the key rule of politics: do not get the cart before the horse. Policy outcomes (closing Gitmo) should be the result of reasoned and deliberate plans (this is how we close it and what we are doing with the detainees). This fundamental failure his resulted in his administration’s rebuke by the Democratic House and Senate. My personal choices for the site(s) of these projected facilities are Chicago, San Francisco, and Las Vegas—I am sure most readers will be astute enough to figure out the political significance of those particular cities. Where are the outlines of “The Plan?” He did NOT tell us where they will be moved. He did NOT tell us the classification system to determine how they will be assigned to his undefined legal system. To what extent will the detainees be accorded due process rights? How will the facilities used be secured from attack? None of the basic steps in implementing his desired policy outcome have been decided upon.

The second thing to note (and more troubling to me) is that our President seems to be historically illiterate. He actually said in a prepared speech that the existence of Gitmo makes it, “ more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured.” Does anything strike you as strange about that assertion? Perhaps, it is the fact that our current enemies (the Islamo-Fascists) are butchers. There is no other word to describe their treatment of those souls that fall into their hands. Consider the weapons that are the hallmark of our enemies: IEDs and blades. Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), hundreds and hundreds of IEDs, ranging from car bombs to homicide bombers to roadside bombs have been and are being used by our enemies. High explosives are indiscriminate killers. Indeed tens of thousands of Iraqis have been and are being traumatized, wounded, and killed by their fellow Muslims. Blades are yet another weapon of choice for our enemies, but not for combat. They employ blades for the torture and murder of their prisoners. This is why (unlike wars of the recent past) the Pentagon does not have a listing for Prisoners of War held by the Islamo-Fascists. They not only behead their prisoners as a matter of policy, but broadcast the grisly spectacle as their own recruitment tool. Mr. President it is not the existence of Gitmo, which causes this barbaric behavior, it is merely the nature of the enemy that we face. Perhaps, in the postmodern world we live in our enemies will always be butchers, consider our major conflicts of the past and current century: WW2 (the Nazi and Japanese), Korean War (PRC and NK), Vietnam (NVA and VC), the Balkans (Milosevic), The Gulf Wars (Sadam), and The War against Islamo-Fascism.

Kevin Frei

Keep up the good fight.

Comment from Argent on 2009-05-22

Fri, 22 May 2009 20:00:05 -0600

Ry you really gotta read before you reply.

Where did the word 'fear' come from or is this a response to someone else? When I search for fear Cheney used it once and you used it twice. What is your context?

Haste? Disagree. They didn't decide over night.

I never said 'overnight'. I said 'haste' as did Cheney and it *was* done in haste by any honest and reasonable assessment. It *had* to be done in haste and I don't see anything wrong with that. What is see as wrong is Cheney making a blunt lie on the matter. And that's just one hole, the most obvious and irrefutable one and naturally you would try to counter it.

Comment from ry on 2009-05-22

Fri, 22 May 2009 12:30:35 -0600

You know, again, I gotta disagree.

Fear? I see more like deductive reasoning. Taking a set of examples and drawing a conclusion from them. THen planning out from that conclusion. It happens to be one I mostly agree with.

I also happen to agree that simply treating these types of terrorism, or anything that is terrorism, as a law enforcement issue is ridiculous. It's an act of war. It's a war crime. It should all go that way. In that I think the previous regime was more correct than the current.

Haste? Disagree. They didn't decide over night. It took almost a month for the Afghan campaign to kick off. DHS probably was a 48 hour decision since it was announced by weeks end. But full blown haste and in fear? Disagree. Over reaction? That I'd buy. Terrorism is not the same absolute threat that the USSR and world wide communism posed and so couching it in those terms, as WAS done, might not have been good. But then there's also the fact that bureaucratic inertia is a problem so maybe they had to go over the top to get ANYTHING moving.

Again, mediocre. Not great, but not bad. A synopsis of a world view as was Obama's.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-05-22

Fri, 22 May 2009 07:26:46 -0600

Thanks, Maggie!

Comment from Argent on 2009-05-21

Thu, 21 May 2009 23:44:15 -0600

This is a poor speech. The negativity and poorly positioned defensiveness are repulsive and mostly ineffective on anyone who doesn't already agree with him. He should look up Reagan who someone posted a speech on here a while ago. That was masterful.

Far too many holes too. Like this codswhallop;

No decision of national security was ever made lightly, and certainly never made in haste.

Of course it was made in haste. In those early days after 9/11 all of it was done in enormous haste.

Comment from Maggie on 2009-05-21

Thu, 21 May 2009 23:33:03 -0600

Guys named Frank are always forgiven......... besides, that was damn funny.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-21

Thu, 21 May 2009 15:48:25 -0600

Ah, well, *you* deal with Maggie. This thread was in the plus column on the Rulez due to her insistence and you knocked it all down.

I'm not responsible for the aftermath when she finds out.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-05-21

Thu, 21 May 2009 15:43:53 -0600

I had a feeling I was pushing it. My apologies.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-05-21

Thu, 21 May 2009 14:39:19 -0600

Saw this on another blog and like it:

"Cheney may be called Dick. But Obama is one."

[*Koff* *A-hem* Minor Rulez violation on pointless personal attacks, no matter how satisfying. 5 yards, repeat the down. -the Armorer]

Comment from Maggie on 2009-05-21

Thu, 21 May 2009 13:56:24 -0600

The calendar in your room still says 12 Sep 01, but we've moved on.

Seriously? Moved on? Don't you mean "moved back"? The current Administration seems to have their own version of Daylight Savings Time and they have "fallen back" to 10 SEP 2001.

*Armorer - please post my points for following Rulez*

Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-05-21

Thu, 21 May 2009 13:21:55 -0600

Thank-God for UnkaDickie. If it weren't for his behind the scenes guidance through those turbulent times, I shudder at the prospect of what may have happened.

Unlike many of you readers, I shall never forget the bad JooJoo that hung over the D.C. Metro Region over the Fall of '01. I saw with my very own eyes, the smoke wafting over The Pentagon. I heard the fighter jets vectoring NorthWest towards Central Penna., in defense of my country. I lived the Anthrax Attacks in the weeks thereafter. And I remember the siege that the whole Beltway felt, when two Muslim Sharpshooters, took down my fellow citizens at random.

For eight years UnkaDickie took seriously his solemn oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I just wish the current Administration would have taken the same, just as seriously.

Instead for petty political points, the current Administration accused him of being a criminal. All for taking his oath seriously. If I'd ever find myself in UnkaDickie's shoes,

I'd do the same thing; stand-up and push-back.

Comment from John (not the armorer) on 2009-05-21

Thu, 21 May 2009 12:40:10 -0600

Cheney is one of the few adults in Washington.

This speech is about the only news event in recent weeks that I found honest and encouraging.

Thank God he and Bush were on watch for the last 8 years.

The mere fact that the current clown posse running things refuses to releast the few documents that Cheney has requested be declassified is mind boggling. And very telling as to their priorities: political power vs. protecting this country and its citizens.

EVERY Republican, or at least EVERY Conservative (of any party) whould be standing and applauding Cheney's thoughtful and dpecific comments. Anyone not doing so should be thrown out of office at the first opportunity.

But, sadly, our new media will bury the Cheney speech and continue their adoration of their messianic idol.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-21

Thu, 21 May 2009 11:27:29 -0600

Snerk! You *know* how hard it is to read nuance in phosphor...

Comment from Jason on 2009-05-21

Thu, 21 May 2009 11:13:30 -0600

I meant "nasty boys" only in the way that Janet Jackson used... (sigh) I'll be good.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-21

Thu, 21 May 2009 10:40:43 -0600

Tut-tut, Jason. "Nasty boys" is a Rulez violation.

Just a reminder everybody, tone down the emotion, polish up your logic.

And recognize a time comes when it's just time to drop a subject, rather than continue tenderizing the deceased equine.

Comment from Jason on 2009-05-21

Thu, 21 May 2009 10:29:45 -0600

yes, fdcol, I have been literally amazed and impressed by how the massive and full use of military power has beaten down and defeated all insurgency efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the rest of the Free World. Why, I am sure it won't be for another decade that we can pull out of those countries... or we could push the intel community, special ops, and law enforcement community to do their jobs in cooperation with other countries, instead of lone rangering it. seriously, man - Cheney - such great insight as to what's wrong with the Repubs... great stuff. Keep looking in your back mirror and telling those ghost stories, man.

John - yep, finally quit the old job, spent a few weeks in isolation repairing my psyche, got a new job in Wash DC, and life is much better. So my attitude in life has rebounded, causing me to seek out and engage you nasty boys over here. Gots to support my man Obama, even if he is doing stupid things at the moment. Hey, it's early in the first term, I'll give him the summer to straighten out.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-21

Thu, 21 May 2009 10:15:28 -0600

Damn, dude, you lose your job and have some time on your hands? You've been invisible for months and now here you are, spraying starter fluid on the coals...

8^ )

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-05-21

Thu, 21 May 2009 10:14:50 -0600

" ... The calendar in your room still says 12 Sep 01, but we've moved on. .."

Yep. Moved on. All the way back to complacency and the "law enforcement" approach to terrorism that worked oh so well up to 9/11.

Comment from Jason on 2009-05-21

Thu, 21 May 2009 10:08:18 -0600

Thanks for the speech, Uncle Dick. You are the number one inspiration for all of those moderate Repubs fleeing to a more sane and realistic universe that exists outside your bunker. The calendar in your room still says 12 Sep 01, but we've moved on. Keep up the great work!