Cheney vs. Obama: When a heavyweight takes on a lightweight

Posted by: ST on May 21, 2009 at 7:22 pm

Dayum! In the event that you didn’t get a chance to watch Cheney’s national security speech earlier today (and I didn’t), here’s the video of it:

Visit for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Read the transcript here.

It was probably one of the best speeches I’ve ever heard him give, and it was a speech that should have been given often in the latter years of the Bush administration as more and more Democrats in Congress forgot what we went through on 9-11.

There are liberals who are whining that it’s “outside of the bounds of protocol” for Cheney to be going head to head with President Obama. I call BS on that. The Obama administration has been steadily beating the drum of harsh criticism against the policies of the Bush administration – especially as it relates to counterterrorism efforts. The level of criticisms that have been thrown at the Bush admin are – in my view – unprecedented in modern history for an incoming administration. Cheney apparently has felt that he has an obligation to tell the administration’s side of the story in an effort to set the record straight, and give Obama’s accusations and “revelations” much-needed context.

I notice these same liberals have no problem with Bill Clinton’s weighing in on Obama’s administration so far – something he’s been asked to do more than once since Obama was inaugurated. Of course, they don’t mind because Bubba has done a 180 on his feelings for Obama and has mostly praised his efforts over the course of the last 100+ days. You see, it’s ok to comment on a former administration as long as it’s praise. If it’s in defense of an administration against accusations from the new administration, it’s unjustified and “wrong.” And, of course, they absolutely hailed to high heaven Gore’s repeated fire-breathing rants against GWB and Cheney while both were still in office. Yes, the smell of hypocrisy here is quite potent.

Thanks, Vice President Cheney. Thanks for defending those whose dedication to this country kept us safe after 9-11. Thanks for making no apologies for the use of EITs against known terrorists who gave up valuable intelligence that stopped terrorist attacks before they happened. And thanks for giving the other side of the story that this administration refuses to give.

Related: CNN Poll: Favorable opinion of Dick Cheney on the rise

RSS feed for comments on this post.

15 Responses to “Cheney vs. Obama: When a heavyweight takes on a lightweight”


  1. dave christensen says:

    Keep America Safe
    Keep Gitmo Open
    Close the White House

  2. NC Cop says:

    Wasn’t it glorious!! Perhaps if the administration had defended itself as vigorously as Cheney is now, we wouldn’t be stuck with Jimmy Carter 2.0.


  3. in_awe says:

    Liz Cheney is building quite a following these days, too. She dodged the question yesterday as to whether she might run for office. Too bad many people will tune her out simply because of her name – she is smart, articulate and on the right side of the issues.

  4. DaveinPhoenix says:

    The people in charge of your national security are adolescents, naive, and dangerous to all but those who are out to destroy us. Great speech – wonderful to listen to an adult. With any luck, 2010 and 2012 will return us to a nation lead by adults.

  5. J Marley says:

    I have always been a fan of Cheney. I’ve read all of the lefties rants regarding him and Halliburton and haven’t drank their kool-aid. It is odd how they don’t equate the same standards for their own water carriers.

    I know Mr. Cheney made decisions based on the safety of the country and not the polling positions of the day. I respect the Cheney family for all they have sacrificed for this country. I would gladly welcome him or any member of his family back to the White House!

  6. Kate says:

    Not surprised at the left’s whining…they can’t take honest criticism. But as stated they could sure dish it out during the Bush Administration when they should have been more interested in America’s security. Now they make whimpering noises and say they are going to fight terrorism. HOw do they intend to be successful if they tie one hand behind their backs, put on blindfolds and drink Kool-Aid at the same time?

  7. Former VP Cheney gave a responsible address in which he reviewed the issues at hand and reviewed the threat and discussed what the Bush Administration had done to counter it.

    In his speech Obama acted like a jerk.

  8. Severian says:

    I’ve long been of the opinion that Cheney is one of the few rational, functioning, competent, and serious minded adults in Washington. The far Left cannot understand him, a man who, after witnessing the attacks and fear of 9/11, steeled himself and did what he felt necessary to protect the country, without regard for his personal popularity. This alone makes him an alien mutant to the Left. Sacrifice and duty.

    I’ve also at times thought about the Roman story of Cincinnatus. The Romans realized that their nascent democracy could get far enough off track to require correction, and that in times of crisis one strong leader was required rather than a bunch of dithering, argumentative senators, and had provision for the election of a dictator. This man would have absolute power for a period of 6 months, after which things would revert to normal. Upon an invasion of a hostile army, they elected Cincinnatus as dictator. He raised an army and repelled the invaders all in a total of 2 months, after which he resigned his dictatorship with 4 months left, and returned to his farm.

    Many of the Founding Fathers had great respect for the story of Cincinnatus, and acted in his image, note that Washington retired after his service to farming, as was common with many of our early leaders. I feel strongly that we are in similar dire straights, and our current system of government is completely incapable of straightening things out and returning us to our Constitutional roots. We need a temporary dictator, but it’s hard to imagine most of today’s politicians taking on this responsibility and 1) doing a good job and 2) ever willingly giving up power. I think Cheney would actually be a fine candidate for such a position.

    As much as the Left likes to make him into some evil Darth Cheney figure, I feel he would have the seriousness of purpose, competence, and lack of a desire for power for powers sake to be a modern Cincinnatus.

    The above will undoubtedly make any liberals reading this head’s explode. :)

  9. Great White Rat says:

    NC Cop says:

    Perhaps if the administration had defended itself as vigorously as Cheney is now, we wouldn’t be stuck with Jimmy Carter 2.0.

    Or if John McCain had had the gumption to campaign with the same fortitude as Cheney has…

  10. Brontefan says:

    After seeing the Cheney-Edwards debate, I was hooked on this guy! He chewed Edwards up and spit him out as if it was standard operating procedure. He is knowledgeable, well-spoken, and not afraid to “tell it like it is.” I find it interesting that W did not have a PR person working for him but OB is totally PR and a few other acronyms I won’t mention.

  11. Great White Rat says:

    He is knowledgeable, well-spoken, and not afraid to “tell it like it is.”

    Absolutely right, Brontefan. Cheney has always been a straight talker. There’s no hint of spin or politically correct editing when he speaks. He doesn’t care how his comments are played in the MSM, or what kind of criticism he gets. All that matters are the facts. He puts them right out in front and lets the chips fall where they may. That’s one reason the leftists hate him so fiercely…he will not play their rhetorical games or pretend they have good motives.

    Sev’s comparison to Cincinnatus is excellent. I can’t think of anyone in public life who would make a better president, and no one who wants the job less – the exact opposite of Obama.

    Cheney’s entire career has been about putting America first, and caring nothing about personal power and its trappings.

    Obama’s entire career has been about personal power and satisfying his outsized ego (name me another political figure, ever, who designed his own presidential seal even before being elected), and the good of the nation is an afterthought.

  12. Severian says:

    I’d still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving with Ted Kennedy.

  13. Don Johnson says:

    Coming to terms with “torture”.

    Like many Americans, I have been closely following the “torture” debate. There has been much angst and debate, and I have indeed been concerned. Has my government been engaging in the evil of torture? If so, then we have indeed slipped far down a slope that is filthy indeed.

    I’ve heard a lot of the discussions and accusations, and have decided it’s time for me to weigh in. I’ll do this from several different angles, because for one thing, I don’t think the debate is being framed correctly in any way shape or form. The left has pronounced President Bush as a torturer, no black and white here, the verdict is in, and he is guilty. The conservative has yet to mount a defense, except to claim somewhat meekly “we don’t torture”.

    What is torture?

    I wish first to come to a working definition of torture. I believe that certain things are black and white, “case closed”. Such things as the laws of nature; you jump off a roof, and you fall to the ground, likely breaking a bone or two. Laws of economics; you spend more than you make, and you wind up broke. I believe the ten commandments are black and white, and you break them willfully at your own risk and peril.

    I also believe some things have a degree of relativity about them, that certain things are comprised of a spectrum, not so easily qualified or quantified as black or white. The concept and definition of “torture”, as it is being bantered around today is in this sort of spectral category.

    Growing up in America, I learned about the torture regimes of history. The rack, impaling on stakes, quartering, breaking bones, disfiguring, pulling of fingernails and toenails, burial alive in ant hills, crucifixion, burning at the stake; typically resulting in extreme and prolonged pain followed by an agonizing death. We’ve all read about them, as well as the horrors of the Nazi and Soviet camps. These kinds of activities are easy to define as “torture”, because indeed they are.

    Then we come to such things as water-boarding and sleep deprivation, the so called “enhanced interrogation” methods. These actions don’t rise to the same level as the others I’ve described, even though they are rough. There is no prolonged pain, disfigurement or death involved.

    Thus, I have come to terms with the Bush “enhanced methods”, and do not believe them to rise to a reasonable definition of torture. Further, I object to the perversion of words such as torture. When we give all manner of latitude in defining a word or action, the word itself looses meaning as a useful tool, and it can mean whatever we wish it to be. Words should have meaning.


    Motivation is also important when trying to determining what is, and what isn’t torture, and here I see several areas.

    There is the basest of all motivations for torture; the perverted desire to inflict pain and suffering for the mere pleasure of doing so.

    Another motive is control. Those seeking control of others often use torture as a means of keeping them in line with the agenda of the torturing regime. I place torture as punishment in this category.

    Finally, there is the “noble, or righteous” motive. This is the “ticking bomb” motive, or the prevention of great damage. Charles Krauthammer makes a compelling case for this motive in his column Torture? No. Except…. I can accept this “noble” motivation as justification for the “enhanced methods” used on al-Qaeda captives, especially in the aftermath of 9/11/2001.

    On the two criteria I’ve cited, I’ve concluded that the Bush administration acted properly, and in accord with what I expect of folks charged with defending this, the greatest nation on God’s green earth.

    You may not agree, and that is your privilage.

  14. Kevin says:

    Long overdue!

  15. Carlos says:

    The only thing of importance for the Zero speech was that his background was of the documents he is so willingly shredding while the media daily have orgasms of delight about his god-like brilliance, annoyed only that the pesky (according to Napolitano) crazy conservative terrorists keep expecting him to do what he says and has promised.