"He presented the views of his opponents, on both sides, fairly."

Bullshit. Obama said: "On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency."

Who? I can't think of one leftie who has an actual voice in the public discussion of these issues who that fairly describes.

god damn dick cheney's shit-filled soul to hell.

liar
thief
mass-murderer
war criminal
torturer
criminal agst humanity
betrayer of his country

He even rolled out the old canard: the very debate over torture gives terrorists "just what they were hoping for."

Well, in a way, he's right. The fact that we aren't collectively standing up and dismissing torture as the vile, reprehensible act that it is and punishing those who perpetrated it harms America more deeply, more profoundly, and in ways that successful terrorist acts never will.

Yeah, well. The media does its "Let's you and him fight" thing. 'Issues' and 'facts' not only don't matter, they only get in the way of the narrative.

Cheney treated us like the target of a con.

You left out "again."

If you listen at the link, the very last words are Pat Buchanan's: "Lawrence O'Donnell's reaction proves one thing-- Cheney's speech worked."

It is beyond me why this obscene Nazi pig is allowed airtime; why, in fact, he is allowed air.

JC

His momma did one thing right- naming him, Dick.

In the clip with Lawrence O'Donnell, at the end, Pat Buchanan says that O'Donnell's reaction shows that Cheney's speech worked. Who is it that has been saying that the right's entire posture consists of whatever pisses liberals off? Buchanan's remark just proved the point.

It is beyond me why this obscene Nazi pig is allowed airtime; why, in fact, he is allowed air..

It's clear Buchanan respects one thing, and one thing only--power. Even if its used badly and stupidly, he inherently respects someone who bludgens their opponents with brute force over someone who might think their way out of a problem.

I think if the situation was reversed, and it was Obama who was a power-mad dictator, he'd respect Obama, and not Cheney.

I bet ol' Pat was sporting a stiff one under the desk at every nasty, dishonest, and unpatriotic word out of Cheney's mouth.

Has anyone presented an argument for or justification of the United States engaging in torture that can not be used by any other group or country as justification for torturing Americans (civilian or military)?

I say the answer is no and I challenge anyone to contradict my answer!

Until someone does - Dick 'Chickenhawk' Cheney is anti-american and anti-military. Every damn worthless soul who provides justification for others to torture American military that they capture is anti-american and anti-military.

Damn their worthless souls for aiding and abetting any current and future enemies of the United States!

May there be a special place in hell for George Bush and Dick Cheney for creating an environment of torture and then blaming a few National Guard troops for Abu Ghraib!

Has anyone presented an argument for or justification of the United States engaging in torture that can not be used by any other group or country as justification for torturing Americans (civilian or military)?

No, but furthermore, the convention against torture, to which the US is a signatory, specifically rules out any argument for or justification of torture.

Though I can't emphasize enough the fact that the GOP talking points justifying torture (or bashing Nancy Pelosi's alleged approval of it) concede the fact that torture was the policy.

"Who? I can't think of one leftie who has an actual voice in the public discussion of these issues who that fairly describes."

I'm not sure it's fair, but Glenn Greenwald is the first name I thought of.

Mike

AngryOldVet:

The entire right wing would agree on a justification. It goes like this: "Because we're good and they're evil."

That underlies most of their beliefs.

To this day, I still don't have a firm handle of WHO did 9/11 to us.

Yeah, we have the official line.

Yeah, we have the conspiracy spin.

How about asking Cheney why we ignored warnings before 9/11?

Using torture to try and forge a link between Al-qaeda and Iraq only furthered the neocon agenda.

9/11 might have been "blowback" from Afghanistan. If so, then why the stonewalling with a 9/11 commission?

It smells folks, and Cheney continues to spread the stinking feeling that we have all been had.

I got the feeling this was a draft of Cheney's Hague closing statement.

For 8 years we had an entertaining clown: the soft shoe act last year, waiting for McCain at the White House, was the perfect, encapsulating moment of how G.W. Bush perceived his role. The result for all to see was disastrous, criminal, ruinous consequences at home, abroad, and within our core values as Americans. Now we want dignity. Sober assessment. Fair play. We want to be talked to as adults: we have been forced by clownish, criminal incompetence to grow up. Cheney is stuck in the old games, and his combined hubris and denial suggest derangement. But then the experience of absolute power corrupts absolutely.

To see what makes Cheney and his followers tick, read Robert Altemeyer's The Authoritarians.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Joel, excellent point. I certainly hope Obama doesn't believe that about the left. Maybe it is just gamesmanship. I sure the hell hope it is.

The description of Cheney's speech, and Klein's reaction to it, reinforce the point that right-wingers such as Cheney and the frequent posters at NRO's The Corner give speeches directed at the base and converse among themselves. Columnists such as Krauthammer and Kristol take the same approach. One can question the intellectual abilities of the politicians; in the case of Krauthammer and others, they might be afflicted by intellectual laziness, an unwillingness to engage opponents in the form of essays and papers that can be dissected by academicians.

One thing is certain: Reasoned, weighty arguments will never be made on cable news or broadcast channels. They're anathema to media executives.

SRS

The most enlightening part of the Lawrence O'Donnell video may be Pat Buchanan, when he said, "Lawrence's reaction proves Dick Cheney's speech worked."

Just how does this man have a job?

I just hate the media's false equivalence that forced us all to be exposed to this loser's (Cheney's) corrupt and deranged rambling today.

The president spoke to America today.

And in an insignificant footnote, a snarling, paranoid loser gave a lunch presentation of rejected ideas to the remaining dead-enders.

I had the same thought about Pat Buchanon. First that his statement was whistling past the grave yard of Cheney's cred, but also I felt disgust that he has a platform. But, Tweety likes Pat and so he continues give him a place to shout his POV on MSNBC. He's probably part of the usual suspects on Morning Joe, too. Except I cannot bear to watch that circus. Old Pat. The last one hundred years have been lost on him.

Steve Benen quoted Joe Klein: "Cheney's snarling performance was revelatory and valuable: it showed exactly the sort of man Cheney is ..."

With all due respect to Mr. Klein, Cheney's many previous "performances" long ago revealed the sort of man he is: he's a vicious, conscienceless, lying thug motivated by insatiable greed for wealth and power.

In a word, Cheney is a psychopath.

Is Joe Klein only now realizing this?

Cheney's speech served three purposes: (1) diverting and polluting the national discourse over what we've learned in recent weeks about the Bush Administration's torture regime; (2) creating a "stab in the back" narrative to be used as a bludgeon against the Democrats when and if the nation is ever attacked by terrorists again; and (3) a political rallying cry that conveniently covers his own personal ass, in case anyone thinks about pursuing this issue any further.

The standing ovation that Cheney received from his audience at the AEI was a very revealing moment. So was the fact that the press treated Cheney's bile-filled screed as having the equivalent stature and importance of Obama's speech ... which to my mind was a bit more important, since Obama is the President and everything.

"if the media insists on characterizing this as some kind of face-off between competitors of equal stature" - which they ALL have done, like this was still part of a campaign instead of the President speaking opposite of a neocon wingnut.
The media just can not seem to get over the fact that the GOP lost and in the process are feeding the American people nothing but blatant lies on a daily basis.

Cheney: "Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it." Later in the same paragraph: "We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source."

Dude is 0-2 at preventing domestic terrorist attacks. Why is he on my TV?

creating a "stab in the back" narrative to be used as a bludgeon against the Democrats when and if the nation is ever attacked by terrorists again

Now that great truth ain't a lie.

And I'm not the sort to go around accusing a fella who says crap like that of 'treason' or of being 'anti-American'... but you and I both know they would were the shoe on the other foot.

"It'd take too long to fact check the entire address, but the deliberate deceptions were constant and unavoidable."

Fact checking is for losers - just check out Elisabeth Bumiller's stenography job for the Pentagon, regarding Guantanamo recidivism rates, and prominently featured on Page 1 of today's New York Times. Apparently, the fact that the Pentagon says there is a 1 in 7 recidivism rate is worth highlighting on page 1; whether this statement is true, which would require, you know, actual reporting, not so much.

good thing we can always count on ol' joe "he'd be a better pundit if he wasn't a cripple" klein for moral clarity.