impeach bush for peace peach
(Go to our Main Page:ImpeachForPeace.org)

Add to Google

Daily Impeachment News:

March 22, 2009

Obama fires back at Cheney on 60 Minutes

Filed under: Impeachment News — Mikael @ 8:12 pm

therawstory
David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster



Dick Cheney and the anti-terror policies of the Bush years have not “made us safer,” according to President Barack Obama.

In an interview on Sunday night’s 60 Minutes, the president offered a stern response to the former vice president’s criticism that Obama has somehow made Americans “less safe.”

“… The vice president is eager to defend a legacy that was unsustainable,” said Obama, characterizing Cheney’s politics as a line of thought which “has done incredible damage to our image and position in the world.”

“I fundamentally disagree with Dick Cheney,” said Obama. “Not surprisingly. You know, I think that Vice President Cheney has been at the head of a movement whose notion is somehow that we can’t reconcile our core values, our constitution, our belief that we don’t torture, with our national security interests. I think he’s drawing the wrong lesson from history. The facts don’t bear him out.

“I think he is … That attitude, that philosophy has done incredible damage to our image and position in the world. I mean, the fact of the matter is, after all these years, how many convictions actually came out of Guantanamo? How many … How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? It hasn’t made us safer.

“What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment, which means that there is constant effective recruitment of Arab fighters and Muslim fighters against U.S. interests all around the world.

KROFT: Some of it being organized by a few people who were released from Guantanamo.

OBAMA: Well, there is no doubt that we have not done a particularly effective job in sorting rough who are truly dangerous individuals that we’ve got to make sure are not a threat to us, who are folks that we just swept up. The whole premise of Guantanamo promoted by Vice President Cheney was that, somehow, the American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists.”

“… This is the legacy that’s been left behind and, you know, I’m surprised that the vice president is eager to defend a legacy that was unsustainable. Let’s assume that we didn’t change these practices. How long are we going to go? Are we going to just keep on going until, you know, the entire Muslim world and Arab world despises us? Do we think that’s really going to make us safer? I don’t know a lot of thoughtful thinkers, liberal or conservative, who think that was the right approach.”

This video is from CBS’ 60 Minutes, broadcast Mar. 22, 2009.

(Source)


6 Comments

  1. Dear Site Owner,

    Many Japanese do not feel this way. We thank Bush and Cheney for helping bring the stolen Japanese people back from North Korea. North Korea says it will again shoot missiles over Japan. Thank you to America, we Japanese have missiles that can shoot down the North Korea missiles. This is very serious problem. Why does not President Obama help with stolen Japanese in North Korea? Why does not President Obama come to Japan? He does not treat his friends like a friend.

    Masayuki Sato

    Comment by Masayuki Sato — March 27, 2009 @ 3:21 am

  2. Some of those released have “returned” to terrorism? How do we know that being the recipient of torture didn’t turn some of those that were released against the US sufficiently to drive then into terrorism as a means of paying them back for services rendered? Doesn’t sound like an unreasonable scenario to me. They probably created more terrorists than they caught.

    Comment by Astounded — March 29, 2009 @ 8:32 am

  3. I don’t Feel Obama any good either a Bush in cover

    Comment by Den — April 3, 2009 @ 9:20 pm

  4. Wow! We’ll see if President Bush’s policies made us safer. This guy Barack Obama has no experience dealing with anything. We’ll see what happens when Al-Quaida hits again.

    Comment by Michael Ray Thompson — April 20, 2009 @ 4:47 pm

  5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQm91-w-uYs
    Michael Savage – February 24, 2009 – Phil Berg – Obama Fake Birth Certificate!!!

    Pennsylvania Goverment calls Obama fraud

    Comment by Den — April 26, 2009 @ 4:51 am

  6. The corporate trolls slither onto the pages of IFP. How much are you folks paid to attempt to slander Obama?

    Comment by Mikael — April 28, 2009 @ 9:09 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

"I just want you to know that,
when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
-Bush, June 18, 2002

"War is Peace"
-Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984

Do-It-Yourself
Impeachment
Blog Categories
Our Whole Site

As heard on
the radio...
Bush hears the voices logo
KFAI radio interview
"I Hear The Voices"
Oct 5th Ad
• Oct 5th Interview
Mike Malloy
Peter Werbe
Get Impeach For Peace Stuff!
(pins, bumper stickers, hats, etc.)
Impeach Bush for Peace Stuff logo
protest picture
Calendar

Picts/Vid
Why Should Bush Have Been Impeached?Charges against Bush

Charges & Evidence


Videos

Bush's Defense
Arguments Against Bush Impeachment...

• If we impeach Bush, we’ll get President Cheney!
The first impeachment resolution introduced by McKinney included Bush, Cheney, and Rice. Although, even if we only initially pursue Bush, initiating the impeachment process will lead to an investigation that will implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.

No matter who we get to replace Bush, we’ll be showing those in power that anyone who breaks the law will be held accountable.

• Promoting impeachment will seem too “extreme.”
Demanding that crimes be investigated is NOT extreme. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered extreme because they were pursued for actions that didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the impeachment tool is meant to be used for. Nixon's impeachment, however, was bipartisan.

  • We should wait to impeach...
Wait to impeach? We've waited 3 or more years too long already. We had enough evidence to impeach years ago. Remember, an impeachment only means you have enough evidence to warrant a trial, just like an indictment. Our congress people didn't take an oath to bipartisanship. They took an oath to the Constitution. Besides which, our troops, Iraqi civilians, and our own civil liberties are all waiting for this.
 
• Before we impeach, we should get some legislation passed...
And with unconstitutional Presidential Signing Statements, veto power, and the power of "Commander in Chief" at his disposal, how do you think Congress is going to get anything accomplished without first impeaching Bush?

If your tire blows while you're driving, do you stop to fix it? Or do you continue driving on your rim because to stop would take too much time?

• It hurts the democracy to go through a presidential impeachment. And Bush is a lame duck anyway.
Holding government officials accountable for their actions strengthens our democracy. Letting lawlessness stand weakens it.

Sometimes reprimanding a child (president) doesn't make the family (Washington) a happy place. But you still have to do it so the child and his siblings (future presidents) learn about accountability. Impeachment is horribly UNDERUSED, which is part of why there's so much corruption at the top. Politicians must learn to fear it. People think things are better because we improved the make-up of our law-making body, Congress. But Bush is BREAKING LAWS. So, it doesn't matter how many laws Congress passes if they don't serve their OVERSIGHT duties as well by impeaching. They swore to defend the Constitution. What are laws without enforcement?

Besides, considering Bush's track-record of breaking laws, he can still do a lot of damage. Our troops, Iran, and our Supreme Court are all endangered so long as he remains in office. Waiting until Bush is out of office will leave us complicit in any further crimes he commits. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that the death toll from a "tactical" nuclear weapon of the kind Bush is contemplating using in Iran would be at minimum 3 million men, women, and children. The path of death would stretch across country boundaries into India.

Perhaps worst of all, we set a terrible precedent by allowing Bush to stay in office after he's broken so many laws. Impeachment will stop future presidents from using Bush's actions as justification for even more lawbreaking and erosion of civil liberties.

• I'm a Democrat/
Republican. If we support impeachment it will lower the chances of my party winning in 2008.

So, your party would rather win elections than do what's right for the country? I hope you're wrong. I also hope the public is willing to throw additional support to any party that holds our elected officials accountable for their actions. This has been historically true with every single impeachment effort launched. And this impeachment effort would begin with majority support (unlike most past impeachments including Nixon).

• Impeachment will never happen. Congress members will block it.
Well, all we need is a majority of support in the House. And 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove Bush from office will happen once the evidence gets aired on the floor of the House, and subsequently the national media outlets. The political pressure will become too great.

Today's impossibility is tomorrow's reality. Congress members will realize that tying their political future to Bush reduces their chances of getting elected. Remember, one way or another, Bush is gone by 2009— but members of Congress may retain their offices beyond that date. Bush's poll numbers are extremely low, and most Americans support impeachment. This is a bipartisan movement. This means that if we make the pressure unbearable for Members of Congress, they'll turn on him to keep their own seats (like they did with Nixon). It's already starting to happen. While many Members of Congress have behaved unethically in the last few years, it's important to understand that this is related to their warped view of what's in their self-interest. Let's wake them up to their true self-interest (impeaching the president), by showing them our support for impeachment.

And even if we only impeach, and the Senate fails to do their duty and remove him from office, it will only implicate the Senators who fail to do their sworn Constitutional duty.

• But Speaker of the House Pelosi said that Impeachment was "off the table."

Pelosi most likely said this to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment. What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she joins the impeachment movement in the future.

(Read More)