Cheney still defending previous administration

[Marc39]

If my arguement is problamatic, then you should have no trouble showing previous examples of outgoing VPs attacking incomming adminstrations so early in their terms

Show previous examples of incoming presidents who were still in campaign mode and criticizing their predecessors 100 days into their adminstration.

 

[fishbob]

As such, Cheney fits well into the description of a neocon. "Crypto", of course, means "hidden", though it is often used incorrectly as a synonym for "evil". It is silly to apply "crypto" to Cheney's position. Whatever your views of him, it has to be said that he is up-front with his policies. Nothing "hidden" at all, except a few memos and e-mails here and there.

And his energy policy advisors.

But seriously - why would anybody bother to listen to that has-been ??

 

[BPSCG]

...Gore then explained how he planned to travel to Iowa in September 2001 to deliver "a real ripsnorter of a speech" that would have harshly critiqued President Bush's first nine months in office and broken Gore's political silence. He abandoned his plan after the Sept. 11 attacks, he said, and instead swallowed his pride and told the Iowa Democrats of the man he clearly feels stole the presidency from him, "George W. Bush is my commander-in-chief."

"I think there were millions just like me, who genuinely, in spite of whatever partisanship they may have felt prior to that time, genuinely felt like they wanted George W. Bush to lead all of us in America wisely and well," he shouted.

"And the reason I'm recalling those feelings now is because those are the feelings that were betrayed by this president! He betrayed this country! He played on our fears! He took America, he took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure that was preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!" Gore closed with his father's line from 1970: "And so I say to you in closing my friends, in the year of 2004, the truth shall rise again!"

The crowded erupted in a frenzy...

Link

So the only thing that kept Gore from ripping into Bush just a few months into his presidency was September 11.

I agree with this 100%. The greatest sadness for me after 9-11 was that it somehow became disloyal to criticize the president. Musicians were removed from the airwaves because of it. It was one of the darkest times in America that I can remember.

If I owned a hardware store and put a sign in the window reading, "Down with Bush" — I'd lose business. Or, if I put one in the window saying "Down with Saddam!" I'd also lose business. This is because other people have the right to associate themselves with ideas just as much as movie stars have the right to express their "ideas." Only by the logic of the bitchy little world we call Hollywood, where even men are divas, would we say it's outrageous that store owners are having their "right" to sell three-penny nails revoked.

Also, it would seem, by the logic of the bitchy little world of the JREF Politics forum.

 

[MG1962]

And yet, none of this supports your original claim that Cheney's statements bordered on being dictatorial. It seems you have abandoned that claim, but without the honesty to admit that you have done so.

So how how else do you charaterise the quote below - this was a statement made less than 2 weeks after Obama was sworn into office

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said.

Then later in the same interview

instead of sitting down and carefully evaluating the policies,” Obama officials are unwisely following “campaign rhetoric” and preparing to release terrorism suspects or afford them legal protections granted to more conventional defendants in crime cases.

are you familiar with the term "ad hominem"?

Sorry no it is not - Dick Cheney is the first VP in a 100 years not to even try to go from VP to President. Why is that do you think?

 

[MG1962]

Show previous examples of incoming presidents who were still in campaign mode and criticizing their predecessors 100 days into their adminstration.

I would be genuinely stunned to hear of an incomming administration that didn't critise their predecessors. It is almost politics 101 - blame the last guy for as much as possible for as long as possible. Regardless if it was his fault or not

 

[Bikewer]

Michael "I don't consider Osama bin Laden a terrorist. I consider him to be a resistance fighter," Sheuer? Michael "The truth of the matter is that it is all of the Democrats and the Republicans, except perhaps for Mr. Paul and Mr. Kucinich, who are marching to Osama Bin Laden's drum," Sheuer? Michael "The war in Iraq is the responsibility of the American fifth column that supports Israel," Sheuer?

This guy's got a bigger axe to grind than Paul Bunyan.

Gee, Brainster, I read the man's book, and didn't get that impression at all. Maybe he's come around to such a position.... Imperial Hubris took the Bush administration to task on several fronts; not only the "hate us for our freedoms" rhetoric, but the virtual abandonment of the mission in Afghanistan in favor of the ill-considered invasion of Iraq.
He stated very clearly that Bin Laden needed to be hunted down and killed.

He did state that he thought that Bin Laden was to some extent a man of honor, in that he clearly stated his position and goals and stuck to them.
At the same time characterizing these goals and positions to be those of a lunatic....

 

[Marc39]

I would be genuinely stunned to hear of an incomming administration that didn't critise their predecessors. It is almost politics 101 - blame the last guy for as much as possible for as long as possible. Regardless if it was his fault or not

Not 100 days into an administration.

 

[Ziggurat]

So how how else do you charaterise the quote below - this was a statement made less than 2 weeks after Obama was sworn into office

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said.

Source? Without context, how do I know that he's referring to anyone in the Obama administration, and not just, say, some activists? Bad form there.

As to how I would characterize it, well, I'd characterize it as highly opinionated. Depending on who he's talking about (again, you provided no way of establishing a context), it might also be a strawman (rather a common event in political speech). But bordering on dictatorial? That's just silly.

instead of sitting down and carefully evaluating the policies,” Obama officials are unwisely following “campaign rhetoric” and preparing to release terrorism suspects or afford them legal protections granted to more conventional defendants in crime cases.

I would characterize this as harsh criticism. Whether or not it's warranted, how does it constitute borderline dictatorial behavior? You have yet to present any logical connection.

Sorry no it is not - Dick Cheney is the first VP in a 100 years not to even try to go from VP to President. Why is that do you think?

Yes, it was an ad hominem attack against Cheney. It was an accusation against him as a person which has no bearing on the content of his speach. It was the very definition of an ad hominem attack. And once again, whether or not his actions have precedent is a separate issue from whether or not they are borderline dictatorial. Your repeated attempts to move the goalpost will not suffice to defend your original claim.

 

[MG1962]

Source? Without context, how do I know that he's referring to anyone in the Obama administration, and not just, say, some activists? Bad form there.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18390.html

You can check the context of the statements with the accompanying video in the top left hand corner

Yes, it was an ad hominem attack against Cheney. It was an accusation against him as a person which has no bearing on the content of his speach. It was the very definition of an ad hominem attack. And once again, whether or not his actions have precedent is a separate issue from whether or not they are borderline dictatorial. Your repeated attempts to move the goalpost will not suffice to defend your original claim.

No sorry - nothing in politics occures in a vacuum. And the preceedent is very well noting. It shows that Cheney and his ideas are as irrelevant to his own party as they were the electorate in general

The comments from that speech are from less than two weeks after Obama took office and 3 months almost to the day Obama won office. At that point Obama had not released any new policy he had not previously signaled in the election campaign. Therefore Obama has a strong mandate from the people on the course of action the American people wished the US government to undertake.

Cheney is critising that course of action, hence the choice endorsed by the American people. Whether he likes it or not, till that course of action begins to fail or not live up to expectation, or Obama makes policy that was not part of the election campaign, he does not have a leg to stand on.

 

[Ziggurat]

And the preceedent is very well noting. It shows that Cheney and his ideas are as irrelevant to his own party as they were the electorate in general

Once again, you are defending a claim other than the one I responded to. Relevance is no more what I challenged you on than precedence. But you do not even appear to have any self-consistency in your claims. If Cheney is truly so irrelevant, then why have his comments riled you? Why did you not simply ignore him? You're flailing.

Therefore Obama has a strong mandate from the people on the course of action the American people wished the US government to undertake.

Cheney is critising that course of action, hence the choice endorsed by the American people.

And that, to you, borders on being dictatorial? Stuff and nonsense. What a terribly strange idea you must have of what democracy means. It does not mean conformity, it does not mean absolute adherence of every private citizen to the majority will (and yes, Cheney is a private citizen), it does not mean popular politicians or even the electorate itself are immune from criticism. You have things exactly backwards, in fact: the inability to criticize a popular leader, not the ability to do so, is a hallmark of dictatorships and other authoritarian governments.

 

[MG1962]

And that, to you, borders on being dictatorial? Stuff and nonsense. What a terribly strange idea you must have of what democracy means. It does not mean conformity, it does not mean absolute adherence of every private citizen to the majority will (and yes, Cheney is a private citizen), it does not mean popular politicians or even the electorate itself are immune from criticism. You have things exactly backwards, in fact: the inability to criticize a popular leader, not the ability to do so, is a hallmark of dictatorships and other authoritarian governments.

I am sorry but after that statement I dont see much point in bothering to continue this discussion.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am sorry but after that statement I dont see much point in bothering to continue this discussion.

What sort of perverted populism you must believe in.