Cheney Speaks Out

The poor thing! Hes probably going to end up wandering the streets like a vagrant wearing one of those silly 'the end is near' billboards. So sad

Laugh all you want - but Cheney is more right then most realize or want to realize - watch and see.

I hope he shaves his head when he does that. Because someone like him growing their hair long to go with the "hippy" appearance would just look silly.

He's not the only one that has the same worries.

Just hope like you never have to think back to this thread and feel like a fool. I have no doubt the guy knows the media is going to mock everything he says, so if he really believes this, and he might just be in a position to know... then maybe it's not as big a joke as you're making of it.

That's the sad part, we all have to live with whatever decisions are made. Petraeus isn't upset over nothing either.

He's just saying, with the intelligence (reports) to back it up, what a lot of us are thinking. I've thought the same things, and hoped like heck that I'm wrong and not a soothsayer.

You can say he's paranoid or whatever, but he's been looking the dragon in the eyes for 7 years, and felt the heat of the fire. He may have good reason to be paranoid.

The part about the risk of a nuclear terrorist action increasing over the next decade is old news, that was announced months ago. The speculation that the new administration will make it easier to do is just that...speculation; or fear mongering.

The Soviet bear comes to mind. I've never thought the bear was dead, only sleeping.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5654836.ece

President Obama will convene the most ambitious arms reduction talks with Russia for a generation, aiming to slash each country’s stockpile of nuclear weapons by 80 per cent.

The radical treaty would cut the number of nuclear warheads to 1,000 each, The Times has learnt. Key to the initiative is a review of the Bush Administration’s plan for a US missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, a project fiercely opposed by Moscow.



While I don't necessarily agree that the Europeans need our help like we've promised, I think this would hang them out to dry. Look how the recent embargo on gas from Russia to the EU has affected them, then replace that with Russian missles on the border.

I say "dance with who brung you." Americans supporting Europeans sounds like a good plan to continue, and disarming in hopes the Russians do so is a fairy tale.

Yes, it would indeed be sad and reckless to try to reduce the number of the planet's nuclear warheads to a quantity that would scorch the Earth's entire visible land mass only once.

And Cheney would still look silly with hippy hair while wearing his billboard!

Where's the logic in that?

When Americans landed at Normandy, I honestly don't think they felt there were there to do "tough, mean, dirty, nasty business". I know when we debarked in Lebanon in '82, we weren't thinking that way. We did no more than needed doing and held duty, honor and country above all. I think the Americans of old would be quite disgusted to learn we were going the "tough, mean, dirty, nasty" route

Unfortuately people forgot about what happened 7 years ago. Our guard was down, now 7 years later, we are still in denial that it could happen again. I work in Manhattan, I was in Manhattan that day, no way I can forget and believe this could not happen again.

I don't think people forgot what happened 7 years ago but there is a healthy discussion of whether the Bush/Cheney methods are what is effective not just in the short but in the long term to fight terrorism. I was in Washington DC that day and am still in Washington DC near some very sensitive targets and I think some of the methods used after 9/11 were not only counterproductive but harmful. I also think there is the chance another terrorist attack could happen and I wonder if I will be where it happens but I reject the notion that in order to fight the terrorist we have to sink to thier moral level as to disregard Geneva conventions, habeas corpus and use torture. A great deal is made that there has been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 but what about the rest of the world. That cannot be said as there have been attacks in England, Spain, India and other places. Has our policies made the rest of the world less safe particularly in the Middle East. Many scholars says it has. To crow about no attacks on the US makes IMO the US seem selfish and isolated as if we are going to do what we want to do no matter what effect it has on the rest of the world. I know many people do not care about that but there are those that do.

To say that people forgot 7 years ago is a cheap shot and untrue. Cheney is perpetuating a cycle of fear that we have to let go of some of our freedoms and rights as free men and women that our forebearers fought for in the start of this nation in the name of security. I haven't forgot but I have a different opinion than you, that is all.

I cannot imagine the horror you felt that day, or every day since then.

Dick Cheney is not a man easily rattled, and for him to speak of this publiclly shows the depth of concern he has. He's a great patriot who has served this Country well, and continues to do so by speaking out in the hopes of making every American more aware of the world situation.

I read this morning that one of Iran's "conditions" will be that the US accept its nuclear program. Surely not. For the sake of the planet, we can't allow such an aggressive regime to escalate their agenda.

Let me start by saying I can't even imagine what it was like in DC on 9/11. My aunt works at Holy Cross hospital right outside of DC and she said it was a nightmare. I'm sending many "stay safe" because you may need them.

You said the Bush/Chaney method hasn't been effective....what WOULD be effective? Shake hands and make up? Burying our heads in the sand and pretend everythings ok? Everyone taking their toys and going home? Can you REALLY see terrorists just "going home"? Personally, I feel no attacks on US soil since 9/11 proves their method has been effective.

Yes, there have been attacks in other countries, and I feel for those people and their families. BUT IMO, it is up to those countries to defend themselves. It sounds like your reasoning is if other countries get attacked, the US should as well. It seems like people expect the US to protect all the other countries, but when the US actually does something to try to stop terrorism, all the other countries get upset. You can't have it both ways.

Maybe I completely misread your post, but that's what I got out of it.

I am not sure where you get that I think that since other countries got attacked the US should too. That is a completely off base statement and who would want that. I hesitate to even respond because if that is what you would think someone would want I can't help but feel that it is a deliberate misinterpretation of a debate on the effectiveness of Cheneys "methods". I would never say to someone who disagreed with me your above statement.

There is debate that Gitmo, torture, and other methods was effective at all and did not make the world a safer place. Or did it embolden and empower the terrorist who saw some of the US methods as the greatest recruiting tool of all time. That our moral standing has diminished throughout the world due to our disregard of human rights conventions. There are agruments for and against.

Ok, that's why I ended my post that I may have completely misread what you were trying to say. The part that gave me that impression was:

"A great deal is made that there has been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 but what about the rest of the world. That cannot be said as there have been attacks in England, Spain, India and other places. Has our policies made the rest of the world less safe particularly in the Middle East. Many scholars says it has. To crow about no attacks on the US makes IMO the US seem selfish and isolated as if we are going to do what we want to do no matter what effect it has on the rest of the world. I know many people do not care about that but there are those that do. "

I was really hoping I got the wrong impression, and thank you for explaining that.

BUT, I still say it is up to other countries to defend themselves. Bush/Chaney policies were to make the US safe, not the entire world. And, I don't think that is selfish...it was being cautious and protecting our own.

I can see your point but we don't do that and we can't do that. I wish we could. Isreal is a good example. We would not leave them without support to defend themselves. Nor will we do that to our allies. And it the world economies and politics, I don't think that realistic that we can be isolated like that. So everything, whether we like it or not, has world implications. Bush/Cheney policies went too far. I am not saying there should not be hard men and women doing hard things but there has to be a limit. I am not sure holding people indefinately in prison or torture has benefits that outweigh the down sides. Personally I think an incident is going to happen whether President Obama won or John McCain. We have not shored up our national security at home. The water ports are porous, the borders penetratable. And I am not impressed with either party have any real good plan to fix anything.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. There's a lot of anti-Semetic personnel in the new Administration, many of which lean to towards letting Israel fight its own battles.

BHO is also leaning towards zapping the missle defense system in Europe. That doesn't show me we're planning on standing by anyone.

I completely agree if war is declared on one of our allies, the US should and would support any of her allies. However, terrorism is NOT an offical "declared" war and is not covered under the Geneva convention (that is my understanding. If I'm wrong please correct me...seriously).

The only thing I can think is closing the prison is a mistake. They already released people that went right back to where they were and are now planning more attacks on the US or other countries.

Yes, I do think whoever was elected would have to deal with another crisis....and either one would be in over his head. But, I personally think McCain would have had enough sense to know what needed to be done. I'm sorry....Obama just scares me. We're going to end up being the puppy in the alley that is just attacked because we can be.

And you are welcome to your opinion and I will stick to mine. We have done out share of things that IMO should not have been done. To say their crime is greater than ours does not diminish that fact. We have disregarded the geneva convention, suspended habeaus corpus, and tortured. Treaties and conventions that we and other nations signed after previous great wars to ensure atrocities never happened again. Yet now we disregard them. If you can prove to me that we have not, please do.

Al Qaeda isn't covered under any of these things.

Why not? I thought they were basic human rights.

I agree that we've not sunk to "they're level". We have, however, sunk far, far below the level of the generations of Americans that came before us