Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Even Bush has a history of distancing himself from Darth Cheney. I would hope that Obama would not respond to anything Dick has to say.

Obama and Bush seem to have a mutual respect for each other. No one in government is going after Bush. An action like that would destroy the country. Remember before the rightwing outrage machine got itself all outraged that Obama became President and moved the debate towards liberal policy making, Obama was acknowledged as the exceptional politician that he is. Its the radical right that continues to use these absurd media tantrums to smoke screen and derail. Just look at their Presidential Primaries. Mental retardation shots, painted rocks, and comedian Ron Paul (I loved him in Bruno). Is Mitt still even running, cause it seems the Repubs think Mormons are kinda weird (pot to kettle: codeword black). Fear and anger. That seems to be all the current crop of Neocons and their ilk can muster.

Ssgt Carl wrote: Kinda like saying a pitcher who pitched the first 8 innings of a game "falied to win" because he wasn't pitching at the end of the game.

Depending on the score when he left, that may have been the case, to carry the reference into baseball statistics.

Radiation wrote: Its the radical right that continues to use these absurd media tantrums to smoke screen and derail. Just look at their Presidential Primaries. Mental retardation shots, painted rocks, and comedian Ron Paul (I loved him in Bruno). Is Mitt still even running, cause it seems the Repubs think Mormons are kinda weird (pot to kettle: codeword black). Fear and anger. That seems to be all the current crop of Neocons and their ilk can muster.

While I can't help but feel this post is ever-so-slightly biased, I can see where it's coming from. I think there might be a tendency on both sides to believe that the rantings of the radical, and very vocal, minority of the left or right is speaking for the whole. As far as calling folks out for their primaries, I agree it gets a bit silly. just don't go thinking the left doesn't do this too (anyone remember any of the wonderful things the Clintons said about Obama?). I'm not saying that excuses it, rather that BOTH sides do their share of over-the-top mudslinging.

dogma wrote:

Ssgt Carl wrote: Kinda like saying a pitcher who pitched the first 8 innings of a game "falied to win" because he wasn't pitching at the end of the game.

Depending on the score when he left, that may have been the case, to carry the reference into baseball statistics.

If you want to ignore the simple point I was making and start picking apart the example, you are indeed correct. If you meant that the Bush administration was flailing wildly for Osama and that Obama's success was not built almost entirely on the intel networks put in place and built up under the Bush administration, I may have to disagree.

Ssgt Carl wrote:
If you want to ignore the simple point I was making and start picking apart the example, you are indeed correct. If you meant that the Bush administration was flailing wildly for Osama and that Obama's success was not built almost entirely on the intel networks put in place and built up under the Bush administration, I may have to disagree.

Well, even in the analogy of the pitcher its unlikely he was flailing wildly, he simply failed to secure the win; even though he created the situation for his relief to do so.

My point is that stating that the Bush Administration failed to catch bin Laden isn't really all that charged in terms of language, and really only points to the idea that whether or not something is called "The War on Terror" or not is a minor issue compared to results.

I mean, if you really want to take issue with media bias, take issue with the picture of Cheney they used.

Though it is funny that Cheney is illustrating exactly why the Bush Administration chose "The War on Terror" for this present operation, and why Obama often avoids using the term: rhetorical purposes.

McCain is right on this issue. Obama isn't being hypocritical because his critisisms were of the Bush era torture policies are unrelated to Obama continuing to use military force against Al Qaeda. McCain is also correct that in addition to torture being morally wrong torture does not help our national security in that it's more of a liability than an asset. What really speaks volumes is the guy who lost the 2008 election for POTUS against Obama is coming out and defending Obama from Cheney's jackass statements. That would be like some liberal douche saying something so off base about George W Bush that Al Gore comes out of the woodwork to defend Bush.

Cheney already has no pulse, how far away is he from becoming either a zombie or a sith lord?

KingCracker wrote:Im not a fan of Obama at all, but if I were him Id just respond with somthing like " I wont apologize simply because with the amount of money you and your company made on the war, you sir, should apologize to America"

That sounds decent enough to me

No no. All he has to do is stand in front of a picture of the Penguin and Cheney and ask "are you sure you're not the Penguin?"

Ssgt Carl wrote:there is a...

Zzzz...

It is worth noting that Dick Cheny never "demanded" an apology from Obama. He responded in the affirmative to a question asking if he wanted one. It was Liz Chaney that came closest to demanding one.

Also McCain didn't rebut the need for a apology. He dodged the question and took the opportunity to focus on the illegality of torture.

It doesn't change the issues discussed here, but it's always worth correctly describing people's actions as the preface to a conversation.