Monday, May 18, 2009

A Discussion about Dick Cheney and His Efforts to Make Obama The Fall Guy


NPR had a great discussion about Tricky Dick II last week and his efforts to turn the tables in the torture debate. Dick Cheney has been on a media blitz lately on behalf of the Republican Party (and in an effort to cover his own rear end). His aim seems to be to argue that tough interrogation techniques (torture) worked and therefore were justified. He is also attempting to use fear (although I don't think it's working this time) to support his argument. He keeps repeating the argument that getting rid of "enhanced interrogation techniques" will put the U.S. at serious risk of another terrorist attack. Although none of the top experts and national security officials (National Security Adviser Jones, DNI Blair, the CIA Director, nor the Joint Chiefs Chairman) believe that changing the interrogation process will increase the risk of another 9/11. Even if there were another attack...it isn't even remotely likely that it could be tied to the change in interrogation rules. But by using this argument, Cheney's goal seems to be to set Obama up for blame if another terrorist attack takes place under the new Administration. In other words... he is hoping to use another terrorist attack as a way to breathe new life into the Republican Party. Sickening stuff!

Listen to Discussion

9 comments:

rikyrah said...

You should open up the dating post. You really should. It was honest and heartfelt and real and I appreciated it.

As for The Evil One,

He had a ' get out of jail free' card when Obama spouted his ' let's move forward' bullshit.

But, this mofo can't let it go.

So, put his ass in handcuffs, do the perp walk and put his ass on trial.

I'm tired of him and his spawn.

I am not Star Jones said...

Yes open up the dating post.

I'm a black woman who has straddled that cultural divide that you describe -- grew up loving Blondie, Bruce Springsteen, John Hughes movies, Elvis Costello as much as Sugarhill Gang, Run DMC, Motown, Sly Stone.

And I have found a way to date men from various race/class backgrounds -- some good relationships, some not so good, but I can say I welcomed the lessons learned.

I'm curious what kind of women are you meeting that seem to repeatedly reject you -- you are smart, passionate (from what I can tell from your posts).

I mean could it be geography, I can't believe it's strictly because you are not Obama, Tiger Woods or a hustler.

So I guess I'm curious if your ideal woman would have the humanity to look beyond supposed negatives (financial & race) to see what you have to truly offer in a relationship.

Liberal Arts Dude said...

Hi AI, comments to the dating post are closed so I am commenting here:

Some interesting articles on interracial dating:

Everyday Sociology Blog

Angry Asian Man BlogRacialicious blogThis is a strange issue because in North America, people who outside of North America are quite different ethnicities are treated as one category -- "Asian." Koreans are different ethnicity from Japanese, from Chinese. And also think about South Asians like Indians and Pakistanis, or Southeast Asians like Filipinos and Indonesians. If they date each other, it is technically dating among people of different ethnicities but in North American eyes they are all just Asians dating each other.

Anyway, yes, the issue of Asian women dating white men is an old one in the Asian community. The stereotype of the geeky Asian male who is academically inclined, physically weak and socially inept has been the bane of many Asians growing up. Dating as adults, this can be a double whammy for Asian males -- especially if they are a bit on the geeky side :-)

I've known many a geeky white male myself who also have many of the same laments that you have about dating. Being white is no advantage for them on the dating scene. I've known Asian males who defied stereotypes (played in rock bands, were athletic, were punk rockers, etc.) who were quite successful in dating both within and outside the Asian community.

All I can say AI is to keep at it -- try to meet women outside of the cutthroat meat market scenes. How about participating in a church, political gatherings, or take classes on subjects and skills that interest you at a community college? I took classes throughout the past ten years and 70 to 80 percent of my classmates are always female. Use the internet to find social clubs and meetups on topics that interest you. Maybe attend a conference. Just some ideas I am throwing out there.

Andre said...

I'm sure that there are plenty of extreme leftists who were hoping that a terrorist attack happened under Bush's watch so they could shoot holes in the "Bush has kept us safe" talking point. Sick and disturbing as the sentiment is, it does cut both ways.

I've always been torn on the issue of torture. It's hard to use gentle methods for extremists unafraid to die for their convictions (though, I maintain that the "honor" of dying using befalls the lower-level foot soldiers...similar to how young men are the ones fighting and dying in our military, while old fat white men do the "strategizing". But I seriously digress). So if using muscle and disturbing the quality of life of a would-be killer saves lives, go for it. Of course, there is also the obvious issue of accurately identifying terrorists and rightly using torture techniques on KNOWN terrorists, as opposed to those who are merely suspects. That, to me, gets down to the heart of this issue. If a person has clearly engaged in terrorist activity, the means are justified. If not, the techniques should be off the table.

By the way, I think it would be wise NOT to open the dating post. I suspect the same arguments will surface ad nauseum. And since you're not the type to concede to a point, it's best to air out your frustrations and leave it at that.

Of course, don't be suprised if the comment sections in either the previous or succeeding posts are off the chain...

The Angry Independent said...

"If a person has clearly engaged in terrorist activity, the means are justified. If not, the techniques should be off the table".Problem #1.
"Torture" is illegal under our system, period. It's against Federal Law. That's why Bush & Co. tried to protect themselves from fallout by way of covering up or searching for all sorts of exotic legal interpretations from Jay Bybee & others to justify the use of these methods.

Even the Reagan Administration Prosecuted Waterboarding. Ronald Reagan was the ideal symbol of a strong Republican Presidency, tough on National Security.

Problem #2.
The government has done a horrible job of properly identifying who is a "terror suspect" and who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time when a sweep was conducted. A significant number of detainees over the years have been found to have had no involvement in terrorism and to have had no information about any future attacks...or even any information about Al Qaeda.

Problem #3.
The use of torture (harsh or enhanced interrogation techniques) did not work. According to Ali Soufan's Senate Testimony, and from comments of others familiar with the techniques that were used.... the methods had a tendency to produce unreliable information. The FBI also stated as much a few years ago.

And I have to disagree on those who are hoping for an attack. There may be a few crazy leftists somewhere who hoped for the worse under Bush... you always have these people in any large society. But what has been coming from the Right is far from ordinary. That line of thinking on the Right was far more organized...and they made it no secret. Do you recall how in 2004 Dick Cheney (during an election contest) told the American people in so many words that if they voted for the Democrat that there would be another big terrorist attack??? That was unprecedented in this Country's political discourse...(at least in modern times). The fear mongering was (and continues to be) very aggressive from the Right.... far more than just normal routine partisan bickering. And it is clear that they are setting Obama up to take a big political hit if there is another big attack... by labeling him as weak on terror, weak on national security, etc. It is a deliberate strategy on the part of Republicans... they have their dozens of spokesmen/women out everyday on radio and TV repeating the same message....drilling that message into the minds of voters.

The Angry Independent said...

Regarding the dating post...

The comments were closed for a reason.

For one... I didn't want to deal with babysitting the comments section. It's too much work. I wanted to say what I wanted to say...and be done with it...until the next time I feel like saying/writing what's on my mind.

I'm also not in the mood to read the comments and insults from trolls & other ignorant folks.

For some reason, this blog does not attract (outside of its small group of regular commenters...and bloggers) a large group of readers who are really interested in, or capable of having an intelligent debate. But we do get a lot of trolls and troll activity (comments from those who normally never contribute in any helpful or healthy way...but who like to show up to spew all sorts of trash and insults whenever a controversial topic comes up).

Thanks for the other comments though.

I do encourage comments... but in some cases, it's better to disable that function. This was one of those cases. Sometimes i'm satisfied with just having the posts read (actually few have read this one so far according to my traffic stats)...But it has as much to do with me going through the process of writing it...and getting something off my chest (although temporarily). Within a few weeks, i'll want to post on this subject again. And I stand by what I write.... yes... it's all true... it's all @#$% that happened...it's authentic. And I really do believe that women are crazy (not all of course... but quite a lot of them).

But those are my reasons for closing the comment section in the previous post.


Now...let's stay on topic with Cheney.

Andre said...

AI, for starters I completely agree with you on "Problem 2." It's in that respect where I'm most opposed to using torture. Often, suspects are identified simply because they "fit the description" (let's face it: after 9/11, Muslims became the NEW black man) or because some of other cursory detail. I'm left to wonder how many seriously innocent people were left in the hands of the Jack Bauers of the world because they had a name that sounded a little too suspicious or because they didn't want to remove their turban at the baseball game. I'm with you there.

However...

The fact is AI, this issue has never been black and white. I don't deny the existence of reports and testimonies challenging the veracity of information obtained through torture. But what about the reports and testimonies (even from the likes of Cheney) who state otherwise? If it's true that "every dog has his day", who's to say that - on any given day - Cheney and his crew were actually CORRECT on how well torture worked? It's sort of ironic that you wrote this post in the same time period as you did with your dating piece. In a way, you're doing the exact same thing in each post. You're presented evidence from some people about how torturing does not work...and you used that to conclude that torture NEVER works. Similarly, you've used your experiences with one, two, or twenty black women and concluded that all (or most) black women are crazy. *I happen to agree that many black women are crazy, but even I have trepidation with using words like "all" or "most."

Moving on...

Also, what would alternative be to using torture? If THAT doesn't work, interrogating suspects with tea and sugar cookies DEFINITELY won't work. Again, when you're dealing with people TRULY willing to die for a cause instead of spilling the beans, it seems that doing something just short of killing them would be effective in obtaining info you need.

Andre said...

OK: clearly my dyslexia is starting to show.

In the first paragraph, I meant to say "...because if some other cursory detail."

In the final paragraph, I meant to say "Also, what would the alternative be to using torture?"

Andre said...

OK. I made yet another typo in the first line. But I'm done making corrections. It's pointless being too anal.