Kerry Slams Cheney on 'This Week' (Cheney has shown a disrespect for the constitution)

[sabra]

Source: ABC News

In our interview this morning, John Kerry hit back at Dick Cheney's charge on Fox News that the Attorney General's decision to investigate possible CIA abuses is an "outrageous political act."

“Dick Cheney has shown through the years, frankly, a disrespect for the constitution for sharing of information to Congress and a respect for the law and I’m not surprised that he’s upset about this,” Kerry told me this morning on “This Week.”

Senator Orrin Hatch defended the former Veep's position, saying that the Obama Administration’s probe into CIA interrogation techniques of terror detainees would weaken efforts for protecting national security.

“We don’t want to cripple our ability in very crucial times to get the information we gotta have to save our country and to protect our people,” Hatch told me during our interview this morning on 'This Week.'

Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/kerry-slams-cheney-on-this-week.html

[MH1]

1. Cheney? disrespecting the law and the constitution? Who woulda thought ...

And it looks like Hatch still buys into the idea that torture actually produces usable information.

[byebyegop]

2. Hatch buys into the idea that the GOP can lie and their idiot base will believe whatever they say..

n/t

[saigon68]

24. The Sheep who vote for these criminals

[LiberalEsto]

3. Next thing you know,

Kerry will go after Cheney with a wet noodle.

:scared: :scared: :scared:

[Inuca]

4. Saying that Cheney

disrepects the constitution is not good enough for you? Would making faces at him be better? Or provoking him to a duel?

[emulatorloo]

6. I think only a Mixed Martial Arts bout would satisfy liberoesto n/t

[LiberalEsto]

11. Since when did you get the delusion

that you might read my mind?

I'd prefer Kerry say Cheney should be tried as a war criminal, but Kerry is a wuss.
I am still furious with Kerry for refusing to contest the stolen 2004 election.

[Demeter]

26. I Second This Post

To call it "disrespect" is to minimize the destruction Cheney wrought on our Foundation. Our nation still hangs by a thread, thanks to that traitor and war criminal. We aren't out of the woods, not even completely turned around yet.

[politicasista]

15. Yep. Facts and other things never get in the way of Kerry/Obama bashing n/t

[LiberalEsto]

10. He could have said

Cheney should be tried both in the U.S. and international courts.

He could have said Cheney is a war criminal.

[karynnj]

17. Luckily duels are illegal - meaning Kerry would not agree

Maybe liberalEsto could make the challenge as he is so much better at facing Cheney.

[LiberalEsto]

20. Ahem

LiberalEsto is a she.
She is furious at Kerry for failing to contest the stolen 2004 election and thinks he is a wuss.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in your post, if any.

[karynnj]

21. Kerry dd not and does not have legal proof he won

without that there was nothing he could have done. Votes were stolen by suppression - meaning there were no votes cast that could have been counted.

Given that Kerry is a war hero, stood up to Nixon, stood up to Reagan with the Contras, and stood up against everyone on BCCI, I doubt he would be concerned that a woman writing anonymously on a board thinks he's a wuss. The difference in those cases is that he had solid cases to make - in 2004, that was not the case.

[politicasista]

25. People on this board talk a good game about fighting the GOP

but when it comes to the playing the game, you hear crickets and insults behind the anonymity of an internet keyboard.

[sendero]

42. Anybody...

.. could do better than Kerry, especially me.

You dumbasses are the reason Dems are never going to have real power again.

[karynnj]

16. Kerry's answer was very good and consistent with things Kerry has always said

He gave a very good answer that gave a reasonable explanation of the difference between Obama's statements and Holder's which Stephanopolis was clearly trying to magnify.

[indepat]

5. Disrespect? Didn't junior say the Constitution is just a piece of paper and

didn't junior show the Constitution the respect anyone would of a piece of paper being discarded into the wastebasket? :P

[Wizard777]

7. What good is it to have that information if you have a President that won't act on it?

See 9/11 as a prime example. They knew of hijacking plots. They were begged to do something about them. But that wasn't a bad enough crisis for the crisis managers of the Bush Administration to deal with. They would have protected Americans from being hijacking victims if they had known some other things. If only they had known that commercial planes, like Japanese Zero's, could be used as missiles or bombs. That the only real difference between a rocket bound for the moon and a missile bound for creating hell on earth is the payload it carries. If only they had known these things they would have at least tried to prevent 9/11. That's like a cop saying, we didn't try to prevent the shooting because we thought the guy was just going to shoot the victim in the foot and that's no big deal. We didn't know Dick Cheney was going to try to blow Mr. Whittingtons head off his shoulders. If we had known that.......

:shrug: What can you really do?


So obviously that unheeded history repeated.

[BlueFRanco]

8. Hatch needs to go to Kolob and hang out with Brigham Young

What an IDIOT

[The Stranger]

9. When he dares speak out with the obvious and whispers what he should be screaming, it is a "slam"

and cause for celebration.

I guess that is how far we have come.

[karynnj]

18. He wasn't whispering - he gave a clear reasonable answer

Screaming is over rated in its effectiveness - something I hope that the right will shortly learn with regards to their attacks.

[The Stranger]

27. Which is exactly why he lost the race for President.

He lacks conviction. He lacks the indignance that he should have in responding forcefully to the Republicans.

[karynnj]

29. He came within 59,000 votes in Ohio, that he would have had had there been enough

voting machines - at a time when 59% of the country answered that the country was going very well or fairly well. (Question 7 - http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm?loc=interstitialskip )

There are few politicians with greater conviction in their political believes. There are three times in his live where he risked a future career and possibly his life for things he believed in - when he faced Nixon on Vietnam, Reagan on Iran/Contra and powers in both parties when he stood alone against BCCI. Give me ONE example where Bill or Hillary Clinton, John Edwards etc did this.

It is hard to imagine anyone speaking with greater indigence than John Kerry when he spoke of the Bush administration not securing the known ammo dumps in Iraq for months leading to "our kids" being maimed or killed by ieds made from that ammo. He accused them of gross negligence that resulted in kids being killed. This was righteous indigence said with gravitas and strength.

[The Stranger]

30. The results speak for themselves.

He lost. It was close, but he lost. You even agree it shouldn't have been close.

If he had the ability to persuade -- if, in your words, he truly had righteous indignance -- he wouldn't have lost.

He explains and explains when he should demand. He vacillates and vacillates when he should strike. He plods and plods when he should charge.

That is why he lost.

[karynnj]

31. I said NOTHING that could have been interprepted as "it should have been close"

In fact, I disputed that. When 59% of the country says the country is doing at least fairly well, it would never be easy for a challenger. Add to that the fact that the country was still in fear because of 911 and there were two wars - that were not yet sufficiently unpopular, Kerry did extremely well to have gotten to the point where he would have won had there been enough voting machines in Ohio - something that was not under his control.

Add to that a media that not only didn't really cover the candidtae's rallies, but condoned a character assassination. Did you ever stop to think that the media in August had had Kerry's entire Naval record - with glowing fitness reports that completely spanned the entire nearly 4 years he was in the service? All but the medical reports were on his web site from April on. The papers were all allowed to view the medical reports which were open to the media for a week or so. Yet, they did not ask the liars for one scintilla of proof for charges that were in complete contradiction with the official report - which some of the SBVT had contributed glowing reports in. They also ignored that SBVT was funded by Bush fundraisers and they shared a lawyer with Bush/Cheney. Even today, you heard Clinton allies saying Kerry did not respond - JUST the offcial record represents more done to counter those lies than the typical dissembling done before admitting that the charges against Clinton - on Flowers and the draft - were partially true.

Another handicap is that Kerry took the party and media favorite as his VP candidate. Now, had Edwards run in the general election with the enthusiasm he showed in the primaries and had he been a team player - having the candidate's back (rather than worry that it could hurt his sunny image) and had he used the campaign's slogans, this would have been a good choice in spite of Kerry's reported (by Shrum) misgivings. As it was, his debate was mediocre and someone else would have helped Kerry more. (His exaggeration on Christopher Reeves was embarrassing.) Add to that that many powerful Democrats had written off the year and were dreaming of Clinton 2008.

You need to remember that in December 2003, Dean polled nearly 20 points behind Bush and generic Democrat was behind double digits. 2004 could VERY easily have been a landslide for Bush - leading to an even more demoralized party. In addition, everyone of the main candidates in 2008 ran on close variations of most of Kerry's 2004 platform - and for Iraq - variations of Kerry/Feingold.

[The Stranger]

32. Within 59,000 votes in Ohio?

You didn't say that?

And when a candidate who did have righteous indignation finally came along, one who would speak the truth forcefully and passionately, instead of meandering and floundering and losing us -- THAT candidate -- and we all know we're talking about -- he won.

Not to mention the fact that Kerry supported the war. That was a catastrophic and fundamental moral failure on his part. He didn't deserve to win as a result of that failure, and he could not recover. Come to think of it, perhaps all is as it should be.

[karynnj]

33. I did say that

That does not mean that he should have done better - it was an incredible result.

1) I am certainly not going to knock Obama, but it is a HELL OF A LOT EASIER to win when 80% or more of the country thinks the Republicans are going in the wrong direction. Any Democrat was highly favored to win 2008 and Obama had one thing that Kerry didn't have - a very strong, articulate surrogate who had the gravitas and class to destroy many Republican attacks.

2) Kerry spoke out against rushing to war before it started - saying it was not a war of last resort. This was BEFORE the war started. When Kerry voted to give Bush the authority, Bush had promised many things - both Biden and Kerry say he promised them to go to war only as a last resort. Kerry has said that his vote was wrong, but it never was a vote to go to war. Bush himself said that vote did not mean they would go to war before the vote. (Obviously you never got over him beating Dean - who was at least as aggressive in what he said in 2002. Dean never said before the vote that he would vote against it.) (I also note that you were OK with Edwards, a co-sponsor and cheerleader of the war through most of 2003.)

Kerry said thousands of times in 2004 that it was the wrong war and not a war of last resort. My Catholic mother knew that meant that he was saying it was not a just war. Did you listen to what he wanted to do in 2004? In 2004, he spoke of no permanent bases and of immediately having a regional summit to help the Iraqis reolve the political problems - that are still not resolved.

Kerry's vote was wrong - he should never have trusted to Bush to honestly do as he said - even if it was an authority that he knew could help a President seriously trying to negotiate. At the time of the vote there had been no inspectors in Iraq for 4 years. But, Kerry then spent the next 3 years defining the plan that eventually all the Democrats accepted - Both HRCs and Obama's plans were variations of.

[The Stranger]

34. Once Kerry catastrophically and immorally voted for the war,

. . . he could not credibly stand up against it. Like Hillary, he voted with what he thought were the political winds, hoping they would help his personal political future.

But a President cannot do that. Maybe a Senator can -- perhaps in the hopes that such a misguided vote is diluted. But not a President.

A President, like Barack Obama, must be guided by a steadfast, grounded, inner conviction. He/She must have a steeled, unshakable grip on what is right and what is wrong, especially when it comes to such extraordinary questions as war and death.

Kerry doesn't have that. Never has and never will. You can hear it when he talks. You can see it when he speaks. He is what he is, but he also he isn't what he isn't.

That's all.

[karynnj]

36. Kerry has the steadfast, grounded inner conviction to speak on these issues

as he did in his April 22 2006 speech on the right to dissent. As to "never has", you ignore that he very famously did - in 1971. His words from then are still well known and repeated and Bruce Springsteen honored them in a song.

You obviously have not really listened to Kerry.

There is a world of difference from HRC. If he voted for political reasons, why did he prominently speak out against the war BEFORE it started - leading David Frum to single him out in a February 2003 piece where he lumped Kerry with France and Germany as never wanting to go to war with Iraq? Through the first half of 2004, Kerry was consistently labeled "anti-war" by the media. Kerry voted for the reasons he gave and he did what he said after when Bush didn't follow through. Had it been political, he would have stayed silent - like HRC or praised the invasion - like Edwards. As it was, had it ended quickly and been seen as successful. Kerry would have been seen as AGAINST it, in spite of his vote.

The fact is - from Kerry's comments throughout 2002 and 2003, it is easy to see that he, if hge were President, would not have taken the country to war. Kerry's comments were clear - he wanted this to be resolved diplomatically. Kerry also led on an exit plan with a deadline, long before others.

You could more easily call Obama's vote against Kerry/Feingold political - especially as the plan he adopted just 7 months later was a stretched out version of K/F - and he stretched it further as President. In Summer 2006, K/F was controversial - in February 2007 - it wasn't.

Needless to say, this was NOT why Kerry lost 2004 - as he would have won had it been fair. The country was not ready for change - and Kerry called for change on many levels.

Not to mention - your "original choice" was Edwards, which makes this pretty disengenuous. As he was genuinely prowar. praising the invasion - even 6 months later.

[The Stranger]

39. If Kerry made so much about being against the war, then you realize that presents us (once again)

with a very fundamental question:

Why oh why did he vote for it?

Which takes us back to his not having the proper judgment at the time. If memory serves, hundreds of thousands didn't die as a result of Kerry Feingold.

As for Edwards, you say he was my original choice. Do you remember what he said about health insurance companies? And where are we now?

Oh never mind.

[karynnj]

40. Because he said that as President he would have wanted that kind of leverage

Hundreds of thousands did not die because of the IWR. They died because Bush, AFTER the inspectors were in making progress and when there were viable diplomatic options, gave the order to go to war. At that time, Kerry was one of the few mainstream politicians publicly speaking against it. Bush broke all the promises given and ignored that in March 2003 it was far clearer that Iraq was not a threat. Kerry clearly and obviously regretted that vote and then worked to find an exit plan.

As to his judgment, it was clear he would not have initiated a war. The same can not be said for Edwards who was gung ho to invade before and defended it afterward. Yes, I do remember Edwards on the health insurance companies - and I think it would have doomed any health care reform at all passing had he become President. I also remember that Edwards 2003/2004 attacked Dean and then Kerry for wanting the government to do more in their plans.

[politicasista]

43. Good post

Though facts never get in the way of good, solid Kerry bashing.

[TayTay]

37. Like George Bush did?

He/She must have a steeled, unshakable grip on what is right and what is wrong, especially when it comes to such extraordinary questions as war and death.

The Bush who refused to admit that he was capable of error? The Bush who saw something go wrong and the sacrifice of the lives of other people's children and doubled down on his steely resolve? The Bush who didn't look back until forced to by an Administration that was ready to publicly denounce their own CiC.

No, we decidedly don't need "the decider" presiding over all things with godlike powers of steely resolution. We need those people with haunted looks in their faces who have seen the utter waste of war and doubted it. John Kerry once did believe in a war; he had people like McGeorge Bundy and others personally tell him, to his face, about noble causes and heroic things done for his country. He believed them and was utterly betrayed from the top.

We need those who doubt. We need them so badly we could bleed to death from "steely resolve" without them. I want the sinners around me because they know and understand sin and human frailty. Keep your Saints to yourself, they aren't human in any usuable sense.

[The Stranger]

38. Sorry, but I don't see Bush has having any sense of right and wrong at all.

For him, the question never even arises. For Kerry, at least, it was presented to him, and he answered wrong by voting for the war and short term political gain (and long term political loss).

Obama, finally, made the right decision. Then and later. THAT is what we are talking about here.

These aren't questions that there is really much doubt about. Kerry didn't harbor doubt so much as fear of standing up for what he (and many others) knew to be right at the time. It was an immoral and illegal war. Iraq had not done anything remotely close to causus belli. Case closed.

(And, don't get me wrong, I'm always up for a diatribe against the Chimp, but here you seem to have missed something very important.)

[TayTay]

41. Apparently the note where your beliefs guide others

Your note is about others failing to live up to your sense of right and wrong. First Bush, did act according to his sense of right and wrong. You exempt him explicitly because you don't believe he ever subscribed to your sense of right or wrong to begin with so, ah, who cares? Have I got that part right. Whereas John Kerry could have possibly agreed with your sense of right or wrong, but chose wrong, no matter his reasons, so, he is irretrievably lost.

No, I don't get it. You post a moral argument that is subjective and self-driven and then exempt or condemn people as to whether or not they subscribed to that moral argument, with exemptions based on your personal views. This is massively inconsistent.

By the way, how do you know John Kerry acted based on long or short-term political gain? I read extensively on his beliefs at the time and he was obviously conflicted about it and chose the way he did based on a defined list of items. I disagreed with his choice at the time, but I could understand his argument, his moral framework on it and why he chose the way he did. I also understood when he turned against that war.

And how do you justify the line that President Obama is walking on Afghanistan? He, and a great many others, have made conflicting judgments on that war, walked both back and forth on troop increases, the overall plan for our involvement in the country and what constitutes an end goal or victory? Should we throw Obama under your moral bus as well because he is doing this for political reasons?

[karynnj]

44. Great post

Not to mention if the reason for the vote was political, he would not have spoken out 3 or 4 months later - before the war - about there still being diplomatic options. He clearly would not have said then that war, at that point, would not be a war of last resort. A Catholic saying that is saying it would not be a just war.

Here, the reasons Kerry gave are consistent with his actions in speaking out - the reason you assume are not consistent. Had there been a short "successful" (by GWB and MSM accounts) war, Kerry would have been branded antiwar every bit as much as Dean. (Not to mention, I personally know Catholic relatives who were stunned by the constant consistent statement that it was not a war of last resort. That was a statement of morality.

In addition to being inconsistent on Bush, he is glaringly inconsistent on Edwards. Edwards was his first choice in 2008 - so somehow Edwards, who was not conflicted, and who was gung ho for the war until late 2003, when he saw it wasn't playing well, is not subject to the same morality test.

The fact is that Kerry is the only politician who has clearly stated his own criteria for when war is an acceptable alternative. This was the in the Pepperdine speech. If you listen to it, you will see where his criticisms of Bush come from. There is no doubt in my mind of the depth of Kerry's thinking on this or what his deeply held moral values are. http://www.pepperdine.edu/pr/releases/2006/september/kerry.htm

[fascisthunter]

12. Cheney is a Traitor

[Octafish]

35. Exactly.

The guy helped lie America into an two unnecessary, illegal and immoral wars.

The facts are he should already have been tried, convicted and imprisoned as a warmonger, war criminal and traitor.

[Cha]

13. Kerry "slams" cheney with the facts and he thinks

it's hell.

[Third Doctor]

14. Kerry was right.

Cheney seems to ignore certain parts of the constitution that does not suit him. Which is ultimately most of it.

[No Elephants]

23. That's very unfair. Cheney loves him some Second Amendment.

[47of74]

19. Nothing new here...

Cheney and his pals have been busy wiping their asses with the Constitution for years now.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

22. “We don’t want to cripple our ability..."

“We don’t want to cripple our ability in very crucial times to get the information we gotta have to save our country and to protect our people,” Hatch told me during our interview this morning on 'This Week.'

Reminder - it was Senator Hatch (R) Re: Osama Satellite Phone

Loose Lips...

September 20, 2001 10:00 AM

Loose Lips...
There’s a time for secrecy, and it’s now.

By Deroy Murdock

....
Capitol Hill also is a sieve for secrets. Administration members reportedly have been vague in their post-massacre legislative briefings for fear that some members of Congress cannot keep secrets.

Senate Intelligence Committee member Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) heightened these apprehensions when he told reporters shortly after the September 11 slaughter: "Everything is pointing in the direction of Osama bin Laden." Hatch added: "They have an intercept of some information that includes people associated with bin Laden who acknowledged a couple of targets were hit."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld quickly warned that when officials carelessly blurt out secrets, "the effect is to reduce the chances that the United States government has to track down and deal with the people who have perpetrated the attacks on the United States and killed so many Americans."

"Loose lips sink ships," was a World War II slogan that warned Americans not to blab sensitive information. It should be dusted off like an old Glenn Miller record and heeded during this world war, too.

[classysassy]

28. Chaney and Hatch

a couple of gentlemen that are so out of touch with justice,they think its just us the americans,that rule the planet.