“How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney?” Mr. Obama said Friday in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on “60 Minutes” on CBS.
The president was responding to recent charges by Mr. Cheney that the administration’s decision to shut down the Guantánamo prison, along with other policies on the treatment of terrorism suspects, would make the United States more vulnerable to attacks.
Bush administration terrorism policy “hasn’t made us safer,” Mr. Obama said, according to excerpts of the interview released Saturday.
“What it has been,” he continued, “is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment.”
So many Americans and others are dead because of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. You’d think they’d at least shut up.
Nice smackdown of the folically-challenged war profiteer
Cheney got five deferments rather than serve his country. He is a chickenhawk and a war-profiteer.
War profiteers used to be shot.
More to the point, closing Gitmo was a great first step for restoring American power around the globe.
Now if only Obama would fire Geitner and get ahead on the banking mess.
Oh so killing terrorists creates anti-American sentiment? Well boo-fucking hoo. Just another example of mushy liberal sentiment where being liked is more important than being right. Good grief.
Of course, The One employs idiotic language like, “brought to justice” when in fact, under Bush’s leadership we sent more terrorists and terrorist leaders to hell along with Allah than we “brought to justice.” That’s you know…a GOOD thing.
And yes President Obama, President Bush’s policies with regard to terrorism DID make us safer. Anybody who says otherwise is a moron.
You’d think that the Obama Administration would have better things to do than pay attention to things being said by Dick Cheney.
Um, isn’t it still open? And isn’t it possible it will remain open even past the Obama-imposed deadline if he determines he still “needs” it? I’d wait until it’s actually closed before trumpting how it was closed.
But then who would be left to be tossed in front of that bus?
to hell along with Allah
Wow… Just… wow.
Jay: “And yes President Obama, President Bush’s policies with regard to terrorism DID make us safer. Anybody who says otherwise is a moron.”
I think it’s clear that you’re the moron here, pal.
Jay: Oh so killing terrorists creates anti-American sentiment?
Hard to tell. It isn’t like we’ve really done it yet. Or did I miss the part where bin Laden was killed and all the those held in Gitmo have been proven guilty?
“Oh so killing terrorists creates anti-American sentiment? Well boo-fucking hoo.”
What did Gitmo have to do with killing terrorists, dumbass? It’s a proven fact that many if not most of the detainees were completely innocent.
Sorry, it isn’t 2004 any longer and you don’t get to spew moronic and false talking points any longer.
“And yes President Obama, President Bush’s policies with regard to terrorism DID make us safer.”
They didn’t keep us safe on 9/11.
sigh bad tags. Fixed:
Jay: Oh so killing terrorists creates anti-American sentiment?
Hard to tell. It isn’t like we’ve really done it yet. Or did I miss the part where bin Laden was killed and all the those held in Gitmo have been proven guilty?
And yes President Obama, President Bush’s policies with regard to terrorism DID make us safer.
“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
OK you’ve covered your ass now (well, tried to). You can go.
Oh so killing terrorists creates anti-American sentiment?
Justifying the invasion and occupation of another nation with a pack of lies may be what the President was talking about. Unregardless, invading and occupying other nations for no good reason will, almost certainly, create anti-American sentiment. Look it up, man!
under Bush’s leadership we sent more terrorists and terrorist leaders to hell along with Allah
The problem is that under Bush the terrorists took a look of innocent people’s lives on their way to hell.
I thought this conservative mythmaking of 9/11 not happening on George W. Bush’s watch would peter out, but it seems stupidity has an infinite shelf life.
You’d think that the Obama Administration would have better things to do than pay attention to things being said by Dick Cheney.
Yeah he should have just whistled a tune when THE FUCKING REPORTER ASKED HIM ABOUT IT.
He could have acted like a professional and redirected the question to his message.
Of course, that would require two things. One, President Obama act like a professional. Two, him to have a message other than “Blame Bush”.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he win the election? And isn’t the election over? Why does his prep-team keep giving him talking points from the campaign?
Former Veep Cheney directly accused the President of something. A reporter brought up the accusation. President Obama laid out his point of view and differentiated it from Bush/Cheney’s failed policy on the issue.
For the vast majority of people, this was a pretty easy thing to understand.
And that can be done easily without needing to get into the campaign rhetoric. As it is, instead of being a competent professional facing tough problems, he’s the guy talking shit about the guy he replaced. He’s supposed to have proxies for that isn’t he? Something about not messing around with Joe?
Did Bush write Obama two letters before he left office?
Yeah, clearly criticizing the MOST UNPOPULAR PRESIDENT EVER is a bad idea. Damn SFC B you seem to think that people hate Obama and love Bush even though the reality is the exact opposite.
It’s funny watching the cons defend a man only slightly more popular than cancer.
SFC B would love to live in the pre 2006/2008 fantasy world of the wing-nuts where guys like John Kerry and Al Gore were too modest or afraid to swing back hard at Republican smear campaigns.
Sorry champ, but those days are over. Obama is a smart fighter. Be prepared for repeated smack-downs aimed at Cheney and the Republican Party over the next eight years and beyond.
I think you are the first person in the history of time to use “modest” as an adjective for Kerry or Gore. But neither of them were President so I’m curious why they’re being brought into the topic of the current president making his bones trashing the guy he replaced.
If that were the case he’d know he already won the campaign fight and that he might need to upgrade his rhetoric cause he’s still stuck on “more of the same” from the campaign trail.
How often did Clinton mention Bush I by name when discussing problems he left for him? Reagan to Carter? Carter to Ford? Bush II to Clinton? The signature comment from Obama when discussing the economy isn’t that things are going to get better. It isn’t that these problems will be fixed. It’s “I inherited this mess”. When given an opportunity to put the previous administration into the past (even if the reporter says Cheney by name it doesn’t take a oratory genius to avoid repeating it in your answer while staying on message) he doesn’t and instead uses it as another opportunity to go “BUSH CHENEY BUSH CHENEY BUSH CHENEY!!!!”.
Just like how so many commenters on this site didn’t any potential problems with Congress setting a terrible precedent w/ the AIG Tax, no one seems to have any problem with the office of the President of the United States being dragged even lower. For a man who is supposed to be made made of pure win and farts gravitas, President Obama sure does behave like politics as usual.
Dude, you really need to brush up on your reading comprehension. Cheney has been dropping little anti-Obama turds through Republican media sources like FOX. As President, Obama has every right to smack down those who are unfairly criticizing him. Cheney ain’t some blogger, he’s the former Veep, and the architect of America’s recent economic and military failures.
Keep whining and pissing your diapers all you want, but we aren’t the party of Bob Shrum any longer. We won’t take shit from you, but we’re happy to dish it out just like you keep trying to, and failing laughably.
As O-dub points out, a reporter asked Obama a direct question about Cheney. If he had said “no comment,” I know for damn certain you’d argue Obama was being cowardly. If Obama had called a press conference to address the risible Cheney attacks, then you’d have a point. But guess what? You don’t. You never do.
You lose, yet again. Do you happen to have red hair? And are you a step-child? Just curious.
SFC B would love to live in the pre 2006/2008 fantasy world of the wing-nuts where guys like John Kerry and Al Gore were too modest or afraid to swing back hard at Republican smear campaigns.
Or, as MAD Magazine once put it, “The Hunt for LAST October.”
You lose, yet again. Do you happen to have red hair? And are you a step-child? Just curious.
No. He and his kind are merely congenital dumb-asses.
Obama completely misses the point here: “How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney?” Mr. Obama said Friday in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on “60 Minutes” on CBS.”
You don’t bring people like this to justice—you imprison them–that is the justice they get. They don’t get a trial by jury because they are prisoners of war. Remember WWII and the Nurenburg Trials? These were not trials by jury.
Trials by jury are for citizens. Remember that next time some stupid liberal starts talking about the rights of non-citizens. They don’t have rights under the constitution.
Remember WWII and the Nurenburg Trials? These were not trials by jury.
Those were in declared wars and operated under the auspices of the Geneva Conventions. Sorry, try again.
No, I’d argue that his handlers are not prepping him properly for interviews, and that is what I’ve been arguing here already. There is no need for him to take the “Blame Bush” tack that he’s committed himself to. We all know it’s campaign rhetoric and, as he’s been proud to tell anyone who will listen, he won. None of his predecessors have spent so much of their time in office trashing the person they replaced. President Obama’s prep team apparently can’t think of a response to easily seen questions from interviewers which doesn’t boil down to “it’s not my fault.”
Of course, given how poorly Obama’s Administration has performed so far in actually executing their plans, I guess it shouldn’t be too shocking that their attack dog seems to be neutered.
None of his predecessors have spent so much of their time in office trashing the person they replaced.
Yes, GWB never said a negative word about Bill Clinton. *eye roll*
The media and the right seem set on claiming that the current world condition is Barack Obama’s fault. It isn’t. It’s GWB’s. And I’m glad he’s not letting that load of bull become conventional wisdom.
SFC B: And that can be done easily without needing to get into the campaign rhetoric. As it is, instead of being a competent professional facing tough problems, he’s the guy talking shit about the guy he replaced.
And what exactly has Cheney been doing? “Get[ting] into the campaign rhetoric… instead of being a competent professional … he’s the guy talking shit about the guy [who] replaced [him].
Not that you see anything wrong with that.
SFC B: How often did Clinton mention Bush I by name when discussing problems he left for him? Reagan to Carter? Carter to Ford? Bush II to Clinton?
Heh. S’funny. You specifically leave out Bush 2 to Clinton.
Again, you’re complaining about Obama doing something similar to exactly what Bush/Cheney have done. I mean, how dare that guy say bad things about Bush/Cheney when all they’ve done was say bad things about him. The nerve!
SFC B: President Obama’s prep team apparently can’t think of a response to easily seen questions from interviewers which doesn’t boil down to “it’s not my fault.”
I know answering truthfully is something we haven’t seen from a President in eight years or so. So I can see where it’s a bit of a shock when it happens.
Oh so killing terrorists creates anti-American sentiment? Well boo-fucking hoo. Just another example of mushy liberal sentiment where being liked is more important than being right. Good grief.
More to the point, Jay, killing terrorists while they’re in our custody, without a trial, certainly creates anti-American sentiment. And it isn’t the right thing to do.
SFC B: “None of his predecessors have spent so much of their time in office trashing the person they replaced.”
Has a former V.P. ever said a current administration is inviting a terrorist attack before?
Jay Caruso: “Oh so killing terrorists creates anti-American sentiment? Well boo-fucking hoo.”
THERE ARE INNOCENT PEOPLE AT GITMO!
There are people who spent years in Gitmo who were innocent. The Bush administration knew they were innocent, and kept them there anyway.
The next terrorist attack against the United States, and there will be one, will be the direct result of people like you helping the Bush administration enact their misguided policies.
CSS: Has a former V.P. ever said a current administration is inviting a terrorist attack before?
Indeed, has a sitting VP ever said American’s would die if an opponent was elected?
“Indeed, has a sitting VP ever said American’s would die if an opponent was elected?”
People are acting like Obama isn’t treating Cheney with the respect he deserves. Clearly the evidence suggest Obama is being too respectful.
What a loathsome person Dick Cheney is.
we sent more terrorists and terrorist leaders to hell along with Allah
You seem to be unaware that Islam is an Abrahamic religion and Allah is the God of the Old Testament.
H’allalu!
Oh so killing terrorists creates anti-American sentiment? Well boo-fucking hoo. Just another example of mushy liberal sentiment where being liked is more important than being right. Good grief.
Except that you’re wrong. About everything. Kinda shoots that talking point down.
He could have acted like a professional and redirected the question to his message.
In other words, Begging the Question? Leave it to conservatives to think that an argumentative fallacy is “professional”.
SFC B, if someone is acting out of bounds here, it’s clearly Cheney. It’s absurd to expect Obama to sit back and ignore repeated hyperbolic attacks. If Clinton or Gore had gone on TV in early 2001 and claimed that Bush was leading us on a path to destruction (which, it should be noted, he was), would you expect Bush to stay above the fray?
As I tried to make clear to SFC B, the Clinton Rules are no longer in effect. We won’t allow deranged Republicans and their lap-poodles in the press to smear a potentially great presidency.
If you or your Dear Leader Rushbo or your Prince of Darkness Cheney want to giggle and fling shit, be prepared to get a healthy portion of it right back in your face.
The reporter asked Obama a direct question about an attack made by the former vice president, not some insignificant random winger nut-job blogger like Jay. Obama had every right to respond. Given how hard the Republican smear and slur machine is working over-time, it was his _duty_ to respond.
Sorry buddy. Call for the whambulance all you want, but it ain’t comin’ for you or your party for the next eight years. Stop acting like a goddamn baby.
I like how you quote me writing exactly what you say I didn’t write.
If President Obama answered questions truthfully there’d be a run on the banks starting at 8am Eastern.
Does the FBI need to come pay you a visit or are you on Joe Biden’s mailing list?
Well, we did just go through 8 years of a president ignoring repeated hyperbolic attacks from pretty much everyone not in his immediate family. So, yes, I do expect the President to be able to ignore petty critics, even hyperbolic ones.
THis isn’t debate class or Logic 101. It’s public relations. Right now President Obama is continuing to rely on what worked during the campaign. It will work up until that first critical mass of his supporters start going “You know, it’s about time he started to mean it when he says the buck stops here…”. As soon as that happens I sure hope they have Plan B drafted up and ready for easy-to-apply bumper-stick printing.
With the exception of Al Gore, “former vice president” is synonyms with “insignificant”.
Since he’s stayed out of it so far into his post-presidency, I’d have to guess that he would have probably refrained from getting into the pettiness that the Obama Administration has gotten in into so far if something similar had happened during his first two months.
Since he’s stayed out of it so far into his post-presidency, I’d have to guess that he would have probably refrained from getting into the pettiness that the Obama Administration has gotten in into so far if something similar had happened during his first two months.
No, the reason Bush isn’t out there talking publicly is because he his the figurehead of the least popular presidency ever! The more you type comments the less you seem capable of recognizing actual reality. Cheney seems to share this trait because any sane man in his position would keep his mouth shut so that Americans aren’t constantly reminded of the Republican party’s failures and demonic image.
“Well, we did just go through 8 years of a president ignoring repeated hyperbolic attacks from pretty much everyone not in his immediate family.”
Like when Cheney told a US senator to “go fuck himself”?
When did Clinton ever directly call out Bush II? He might have criticized Bush’s policies, but Clinton (and Gore) played their roles properly in showing respect for their former office. Cheney made a mockery of it by trying to goad Obama. And Obama, when asked a direct question by a reporter, called his bluff.
Again, you’re projecting so much it hurts. What we have here is a US president unwilling to take any shit from Republicans, the party that “hopes America fails,” and the party that is quickly becoming a regional minority of aging white males at best. Dick Cheney has only been out of office for two months, and he’s claiming that America is going to be hit again like the Bush II failure to prevent 9/11. This isn’t like saying “Obama sux,” this is saying that Obama’s actual policies are going to kill 3,000 more Americans.
Like I said, this is all about you wetting yourself that the Dems are no longer the party of Bob Shrum and John Kerry. They’re a party that will swing back at you twice as hard as you swing at them.
Get used to it.
On top of it all it’s the right with their John Galt and teabagging histrionics that’s tilling up the soil for the next McVeigh.
Jay says, March 22, 2009 at 12:57 am
Oh so killing terrorists creates anti-American sentiment? Well boo-fucking hoo. Just another example of mushy liberal sentiment where being liked is more important than being right. Good grief.
Oh so indefinitely detaining innocent people and claiming they’re terrorists without a shred of fucking proof creates anti-American sentiment? Well boo-fucking hoo. Just another example of fascist Repulbican’t sentiment where being ‘right’ while actually being wrong in the reality-based world is more important than being moral and ethical. Good grief. And, not like it’s a big surprise or anything, either…
SFC B says, March 22, 2009 at 2:04 am
He could have acted like a professional and redirected the question to his message.
Or, hey – maybe the reporter could have acted like a professional and not spewed Reich wing talking points from a torturing failure of a vice president, and asked him a reasonable question?
Funny thing, though – if somebody like, oh, say. Al Gore would have publicly decried Gitmo and the torture regime during their reign, I wonder what the reaction of the conservative mainstream media would be?
I love the smell of schadenfreude in the morning…
He could have acted like a professional and redirected the question to his message.
And then you could bitch about him ducking the question.