Cheney: President Obama Wants ‘To Take America Down’

[Doc Savage Fan]

There is no problem, I already linked it before and you ignored it. If you're interested in it go use the search function.

And I've linked several articles which indicate that it has become a failed state since NATO intervention. The best possible argument you can make is that it was a "failing" state at that particular time. The fact of the matter is...there is no real consensus on the definition of a "failed-state"; however, it's clear that this term is most commonly used to describe Libya after NATO intervention, not before. Anyway, my point remains despite your diversion into a semantics game.

 

[Jhhnn]

And I've linked several articles which indicate that it has become a failed state since NATO intervention. The best possible argument you can make is that it was a "failing" state at that particular time. The fact of the matter is...there is no real consensus on the definition of a "failed-state"; however, it's clear that this term is most commonly used to describe Libya after NATO intervention, not before. Anyway, my point remains despite your diversion into a semantics game.

Yes, yes, and your point remains pointless in the context of Cheney's remarks about Obama.

Failed State, you say? Afghanistan & Iraq are different only in terms of how much money we spent & how many people are affected. The combined populations of Afghanistan & Iraq are about 10X that of Libya & our ongoing expenditures for both are quite large, but, uhh, nevermind, cuz Obama is the Evil One, Hell bent on taking America down! By doing on a small scale what your heroes did on a much, much larger scale with much greater expenditure & loss of life, not to mention what Neocon ambitions might create from our disagreements with Iran.

Something about a mote in one eye & a beam in another.... but you'd have to pull your head out of your ass to find the beam so it'll never happen.

 

[Jaskalas]

Hah... now we excuse Obama because Libya is... smaller.

How about arming those Syrian rebels and chomping at the bit to take out Assad? Obama isn't done trying to destroy the Middle East. Apparently couldn't get enough of the Bush / Cheney policy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hah... now we excuse Obama because Libya is... smaller.

How about arming those Syrian rebels and chomping at the bit to take out Assad? Obama isn't done trying to destroy the Middle East. Apparently couldn't get enough of the Bush / Cheney policy.

Funny- I don't recall either you or DSF criticizing Neocon interventionist policy until Obama followed through on it. Near as I can tell, both of you argue for more of the same on an even broader scale wrt Iran.

 

[MongGrel]

If you have facts, present them instead of looking like mindless cheerleader.

NATO’s “Humanitarian Intervention” in Libya: Transforming a Country into a “Failed State”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/natos-...forming-a-country-into-a-failed-state/5376660

So you're more or less rooting for Cheney.

How sad.

 

[Jhhnn]

So you're more or less rooting for Cheney.

How sad.

All Righties admire Cheney's tough guy bullshit, the same way they swoon over Rick Perry. It's a "strong leadership" kinda thing.

 

[werepossum]

Wasn't Libya a European adventure, and Obama / United States merely tagged along for the ride? I mean... I think we rode shotgun on that one. Yes, we are responsible for our part... I just want to be clear about what our part was.

It's terrible what we did to Libya. The Arab Spring is nothing more than the rise of groups like ISIS.

That was my recollection as well - we might have done most of the air strikes, but it was essentially driven by the French and to a lesser extent, the British. I'm okay with that; if we want our allies to join in on our adventures, we have to be willing to reciprocate, and the Brits at least have been superb allies. The French . . . I can do no better than to quote Stormin' Norman: "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion."

I can support the Arab Spring. I think people deserve self-determination. If they use that to give up power to fundamentalist Islamic terror groups, well, at least when the drones strike it will be due to their own actions and not the actions of a dictator. Democracy doesn't make you smart, it just gives you a chance.

 

[Jaskalas]

Funny- I don't recall either you or DSF criticizing Neocon interventionist policy until Obama followed through on it. Near as I can tell, both of you argue for more of the same on an even broader scale wrt Iran.

My foreign policy history?

I come from a Republican background which is little more than team sports. Bush good, Clinton / Gore bad. Republicans speak a good game regarding freedom and liberty for the American people, Libertarian values are highly attractive as they aspire to this nation's founding principles.

I didn't know much or give two !@#$ about Muslims until September 11th, 2001. That's my major introduction to them. Vengeance to secure ourselves from another attack was top priority. Thus Afghanistan in 2001. I support that retaliation to this day.

Bush had set his sights on a bigger picture. In 2002 it was the Saddam WMD boogieman. Saddam was our leftover "enemy" from the first Gulf war, has a history of weapons, remained hostile and in non compliance. Saddam was claimed to be arming up and friends to terrorists. Take him out and find more security against the Muslim threat. I was okay with that... at first.

First two years on P&N I didn't know better. You guys made strong arguments condemning big-government Bush, Neocon Bush. But you're the political enemy. Our team politics meant there was no discourse between us. Only anger, resentment, a brick wall.

Sometime in 2006 I happened upon an article off Jihad Watch, a fellow Republican spoke of the uselessness of the Iraq war. Of our mistakes, our sacrifices, and the likely outcome. We brought terrorism to Iraq, and death to our troops. Bush is responsible for toppling a largely secular enemy and handing Iraq over to Muslim terrorists. Of removing Iran's largest enemy and thus empowering them.

This was condemnation of the Neocon / Bush policy... from my own "team". It bypassed the brick wall struck at the core of the matter. I learned the true nature of the policy of "my" President. I learned I did not support it.

The immediate repercussions were I wanted us out of Iraq. We had made enough sacrifice just to hand it over to our enemies. Just to breed terrorism off the lives of our men. I opposed the 2007 Iraq Surge. Republicans and McCain got what they wanted... we spent more time in Iraq.

This division between me and the Neocons grew to the point where McCain was clearly with them, and I voted against him in the 2008 election. I will not vote for a big government Neocon Republican. They are as much my political enemy as big government "Liberal" Democrats. Romney earned the same ire. Next candidate likely will as well.

What about you? When did you switch from opposing the Bush policy to espousing excuses for it when your President is the one pursuing it? When did you decide to vote for Neocons?

 

[MongGrel]

Good Post.

I won't go into elaborate details, but I grew up in the 60's and 70's in a middle class very conservative family, that also was tempered a bit with relatives who were college professors that were liberal to the other extreme.

Made for interesting family re-unions.

Somewhere along the way I veered off, I'd like to think I can think for myself to a degree and have some old school common sense was pounded into my brain at a young age, along with some freethinker type of Lutheran religion from way back.

I just do not buy into a lot of what NeoCons are trying to sell these days.

I think I veered away about 1990, personally.

 

[ivwshane]

As far as I know he's always been against it. So that should end that straw man

I've always been against it, or at least boots on the ground. I feel our effort in the Middle East should be zero or at the very most, minimal, ie drone attacks (no sense in Americans dying needlessly for following stupid foreign policy). The presidents Iran policy is about the only thing I agree with him on 100%, foreign policy wise, everything else is more of the same all in the name of the "war on terror" and "keeping Americans safe", both are complete bullshit.

Now having said that, you will note what this thread's topic is about and you will also note DSF's attempted derailment. And it was a derailment because you don't see DSF criticizing Cheney and then showing how Obama is doing the same thing. Nope! He went straight for the (to use the rights meme) "bu, bu, but Obama!".

My foreign policy history?

I come from a Republican background which is little more than team sports. Bush good, Clinton / Gore bad. Republicans speak a good game regarding freedom and liberty for the American people, Libertarian values are highly attractive as they aspire to this nation's founding principles.

I didn't know much or give two !@#$ about Muslims until September 11th, 2001. That's my major introduction to them. Vengeance to secure ourselves from another attack was top priority. Thus Afghanistan in 2001. I support that retaliation to this day.

Bush had set his sights on a bigger picture. In 2002 it was the Saddam WMD boogieman. Saddam was our leftover "enemy" from the first Gulf war, has a history of weapons, remained hostile and in non compliance. Saddam was claimed to be arming up and friends to terrorists. Take him out and find more security against the Muslim threat. I was okay with that... at first.

First two years on P&N I didn't know better. You guys made strong arguments condemning big-government Bush, Neocon Bush. But you're the political enemy. Our team politics meant there was no discourse between us. Only anger, resentment, a brick wall.

Sometime in 2006 I happened upon an article off Jihad Watch, a fellow Republican spoke of the uselessness of the Iraq war. Of our mistakes, our sacrifices, and the likely outcome. We brought terrorism to Iraq, and death to our troops. Bush is responsible for toppling a largely secular enemy and handing Iraq over to Muslim terrorists. Of removing Iran's largest enemy and thus empowering them.

This was condemnation of the Neocon / Bush policy... from my own "team". It bypassed the brick wall struck at the core of the matter. I learned the true nature of the policy of "my" President. I learned I did not support it.

The immediate repercussions were I wanted us out of Iraq. We had made enough sacrifice just to hand it over to our enemies. Just to breed terrorism off the lives of our men. I opposed the 2007 Iraq Surge. Republicans and McCain got what they wanted... we spent more time in Iraq.

This division between me and the Neocons grew to the point where McCain was clearly with them, and I voted against him in the 2008 election. I will not vote for a big government Neocon Republican. They are as much my political enemy as big government "Liberal" Democrats. Romney earned the same ire. Next candidate likely will as well.

What about you? When did you switch from opposing the Bush policy to espousing excuses for it when your President is the one pursuing it? When did you decide to vote for Neocons?

 

[fskimospy]

And I've linked several articles which indicate that it has become a failed state since NATO intervention. The best possible argument you can make is that it was a "failing" state at that particular time. The fact of the matter is...there is no real consensus on the definition of a "failed-state"; however, it's clear that this term is most commonly used to describe Libya after NATO intervention, not before. Anyway, my point remains despite your diversion into a semantics game.

That Libya is currently a failed state was never in dispute, your contention that Libya being a failed state was a result of the NATO campaign and wouldn't be otherwise was.

That's the whole point of your argument, so I have no idea how you would think that was a distraction. Then you just started googling and linking the first things that told you what you wanted to hear and started linking to conspiracy crank sites that blamed he IMF for Libya.

 

[MongGrel]

*I think we scared him off*

 

[Jhhnn]

My foreign policy history?

I come from a Republican background which is little more than team sports. Bush good, Clinton / Gore bad. Republicans speak a good game regarding freedom and liberty for the American people, Libertarian values are highly attractive as they aspire to this nation's founding principles.

I didn't know much or give two !@#$ about Muslims until September 11th, 2001. That's my major introduction to them. Vengeance to secure ourselves from another attack was top priority. Thus Afghanistan in 2001. I support that retaliation to this day.

Bush had set his sights on a bigger picture. In 2002 it was the Saddam WMD boogieman. Saddam was our leftover "enemy" from the first Gulf war, has a history of weapons, remained hostile and in non compliance. Saddam was claimed to be arming up and friends to terrorists. Take him out and find more security against the Muslim threat. I was okay with that... at first.

First two years on P&N I didn't know better. You guys made strong arguments condemning big-government Bush, Neocon Bush. But you're the political enemy. Our team politics meant there was no discourse between us. Only anger, resentment, a brick wall.

Sometime in 2006 I happened upon an article off Jihad Watch, a fellow Republican spoke of the uselessness of the Iraq war. Of our mistakes, our sacrifices, and the likely outcome. We brought terrorism to Iraq, and death to our troops. Bush is responsible for toppling a largely secular enemy and handing Iraq over to Muslim terrorists. Of removing Iran's largest enemy and thus empowering them.

This was condemnation of the Neocon / Bush policy... from my own "team". It bypassed the brick wall struck at the core of the matter. I learned the true nature of the policy of "my" President. I learned I did not support it.

The immediate repercussions were I wanted us out of Iraq. We had made enough sacrifice just to hand it over to our enemies. Just to breed terrorism off the lives of our men. I opposed the 2007 Iraq Surge. Republicans and McCain got what they wanted... we spent more time in Iraq.

This division between me and the Neocons grew to the point where McCain was clearly with them, and I voted against him in the 2008 election. I will not vote for a big government Neocon Republican. They are as much my political enemy as big government "Liberal" Democrats. Romney earned the same ire. Next candidate likely will as well.

What about you? When did you switch from opposing the Bush policy to espousing excuses for it when your President is the one pursuing it? When did you decide to vote for Neocons?

Remarkable. The US has engaged in interventionist foreign policy since WW2 & before. TR took the isthmus from Colombia & set up the independence of Panama by instigating civil war, for example.

It's not like that sort of policy can turn on a dime, nor necessarily should it. OTOH, both Afghanistan & Iraq are mountainous failures of policy, easily the greatest since Vietnam, perhaps much greater than that. We bit off more than we cared to chew, thanks to Neocon miscalculation.

And yet you ignore them to chastise Obama for what couldn't be much more than a molehill in comparison. So save me your moralistic bullshit, OK? Take a look at it in strictly pragmatic terms. It's unlikely that Afghanistan will be any different before & after our presence despite enormous expenditures & loss of life. 14 years of occupation as retaliation is more than enough, I think. Iraq is already a disaster just as you say because the Bushistas destroyed the over arching ideology & governance of Evil Socialist Baathism that held it together. Again, the expense & loss of life expended to fracture Israel's rival hardly seems to have a payoff for us. Compare that to what we spent to oust Qaddafi's rogue lootocracy to understand why I don't view the latter as necessarily a bad thing at all, not any more than the ouster of Noriega, for example.

I would much prefer a less interventionist policy in general, but let's get real, OK? The best I can hope for is that our govt picks its targets realistically rather than thinking we're willing to wage war continuously on some sort of misguided Crusade to serve neocon dreams of world domination. True expressions of American exceptionalism have nothing to do with that.

I don't need a member of my own party to provide me with facts, either. I don't have that kind of blinders. You'd do well to discard your own.

 

[MongGrel]

Remarkable. The US has engaged in interventionist foreign policy since WW2 & before. TR took the isthmus from Colombia & set up the independence of Panama by instigating civil war, for example.

It's not like that sort of policy can turn on a dime, nor necessarily should it. OTOH, both Afghanistan & Iraq are mountainous failures of policy, easily the greatest since Vietnam, perhaps much greater than that. We bit off more than we cared to chew, thanks to Neocon miscalculation.

And yet you ignore them to chastise Obama for what couldn't be much more than a molehill in comparison. So save me your moralistic bullshit, OK? Take a look at it in strictly pragmatic terms. It's unlikely that Afghanistan will be any different before & after our presence despite enormous expenditures & loss of life. 14 years of occupation as retaliation is more than enough, I think. Iraq is already a disaster just as you say because the Bushistas destroyed the over arching ideology & governance of Evil Socialist Baathism that held it together. Again, the expense & loss of life expended to fracture Israel's rival hardly seems to have a payoff for us. Compare that to what we spent to oust Qaddafi's rogue lootocracy to understand why I don't view the latter as necessarily a bad thing at all, not any more than the ouster of Noriega, for example.

I would much prefer a less interventionist policy in general, but let's get real, OK? The best I can hope for is that our govt picks its targets realistically rather than thinking we're willing to wage war continuously on some sort of misguided Crusade to serve neocon dreams of world domination. True expressions of American exceptionalism have nothing to do with that.

I don't need a member of my own party to provide me with facts, either. I don't have that kind of blinders. You'd do well to discard your own.

I think he has to some degree, why are you chewing on him

 

[nickqt]

Remarkable. The US has engaged in interventionist foreign policy since WW2 & before. TR took the isthmus from Colombia & set up the independence of Panama by instigating civil war, for example.

It's not like that sort of policy can turn on a dime, nor necessarily should it. OTOH, both Afghanistan & Iraq are mountainous failures of policy, easily the greatest since Vietnam, perhaps much greater than that. We bit off more than we cared to chew, thanks to Neocon miscalculation.

And yet you ignore them to chastise Obama for what couldn't be much more than a molehill in comparison. So save me your moralistic bullshit, OK? Take a look at it in strictly pragmatic terms. It's unlikely that Afghanistan will be any different before & after our presence despite enormous expenditures & loss of life. 14 years of occupation as retaliation is more than enough, I think. Iraq is already a disaster just as you say because the Bushistas destroyed the over arching ideology & governance of Evil Socialist Baathism that held it together. Again, the expense & loss of life expended to fracture Israel's rival hardly seems to have a payoff for us. Compare that to what we spent to oust Qaddafi's rogue lootocracy to understand why I don't view the latter as necessarily a bad thing at all, not any more than the ouster of Noriega, for example.

I would much prefer a less interventionist policy in general, but let's get real, OK? The best I can hope for is that our govt picks its targets realistically rather than thinking we're willing to wage war continuously on some sort of misguided Crusade to serve neocon dreams of world domination. True expressions of American exceptionalism have nothing to do with that.

I don't need a member of my own party to provide me with facts, either. I don't have that kind of blinders. You'd do well to discard your own.

Remember: projection and cognitive dissonance are the foundations of conservatism.

It's basically assumed that all libruuls support Obama's drone terrorism program (inherited from Bush) simply because Obama is nominally a libruul. Perspective is lost when we simply point out that we've been droning people for the past 13 years, and that at least KingObummer™ hasn't been invading countries and getting thousands of Murricans killed to do it. I'm totally against our drone terrorism program, but compared to invading countries with American soldiers...we're making progress. The US is an Empire. I'd have died of heart failure secondary to hypertension by the age of 12 if I let every single US imperial action get to me.

But hey: at least we're keeping our hands and feet out of the hornets nest, even if we keep throwing rocks at it reflexively.

 

[brycejones]

All Righties admire Cheney's tough guy bullshit, the same way they swoon over Rick Perry. It's a "strong leadership" kinda thing.

Its also why they sport wood over Putin.

 

[himkhan]

This coming from Cheney? A guy who takes down hunting friends?

 

[trenchfoot]

On reflecting on the ruinous state of the union as Bush and Cheney disgracefully left office, and then reminding myself how since their less than glorious exit out the White House back door service entrance Cheney has been hell bent on re-writing history to salvage whatever he could from his enormous failures while in office to put a little shine on his legacy as VP and POTUS puppeteer, I wonder if that guy has really fully gone into that fantasy land he tried to convince the nation we lived in while he was in office.

That he refuses to gracefully bow out of the political limelight as did GWB only magnifies his weird and embarrassing Quixotic quest toward convincing the world that he was indeed the knight in shining armor that saved/is saving the free world from the likes of Saddam and Obama.

After creating the catastrophic mess he and his business buddy George made on the world stage, you'd think he'd wise up and STFU already. Instead, he's humiliating himself and the GOP along with him by not being able to realize he is only adding more foundation timbers and buttressing the rafters to that disastrous hall of shame he built for himself and the party they led.

edit - Let the example of how these two fine corporatists led the nation into financial ruin be a lesson that we should never ever trust corrupt businessmen to run (ruin) our nation ever again.

 

[shortylickens]

Cheney was so horrible I'm amazed nobody has killed him yet.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So you're more or less rooting for Cheney.

How sad.

I'll tell you what's sad, it's your complete inability to grasp what I'm talking about. I'm in no way rooting for Cheney. And don't deceive yourself, if Cheney would have done exactly what Obama did in Libya...liberals would have been screaming bloody murder.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That Libya is currently a failed state was never in dispute, your contention that Libya being a failed state was a result of the NATO campaign and wouldn't be otherwise was.

We don't know the outcome had we not supported the rebels; however, we do know the outcome of our intervention...a complete disaster that resulted in widespread human suffering that continues to this day. We bombed the crap out of a sovereign state that was no threat to our country...and it's beyond me how anyone can justify these actions out of one side of their mouth and then demonize neocons out the other side*. Libya was a disaster and we walked away while giving our Nobel peace prize winner a pass as if we did nothing wrong...meanwhile millions in Libya and the region suffer to this day as a direct result of our involvement.

* I'm anti-war and not defending neocons <-- for those who have severe critical thinking issues

 

[Cienja]

I thought DICK brought the USA down?

 

[trenchfoot]

I really do hope that Cheney is doing all of this lip flapping/fapping out of guilt compensation. In that way I could at the least give him credit for having some kind of remorse for what he did to us as a nation, and especially for what he did to those members of our military.

Along with the rest of that neocon-infested cabal that took us to war, it really looks like these profiteering asshats considered our beloved armed forces to be their very own private military to be used as they pleased, a souless junta that used/abused our military just as casually as they tried to take our disabled veterans benefits away while simultaneously sending fresh troops through the meat grinder.

All this for personal gain. Anything else really didn't matter to Cheney and his ilk.

Parasitic bloodsuckers the lot of them.

 

[Fern]

Facts rarely make a dent in right wing belief. Having been suckered, they generally stay that way. Propaganda 101.

Libya is worse off for Obama's (I hear he blames Hillary) actions to despose Khadaffi.

And as usual, Eskimospy has diverted the issue by dragging it into the irrelevant issue of what is the definition of "failed state".

Fern

 

[JSt0rm]

Libya is worse off for Obama's (I hear he blames Hillary) actions to despose Khadaffi.

And as usual, Eskimospy has diverted the issue by dragging it into the irrelevant issue of what is the definition of "failed state".

Fern

Says someone who diverted the issue to failed states in a Cheney thread.