Word Cloud Of Obama And Cheney Speeches
President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney both spoke Thursday morning on the issue of national security in what were billed as dueling speeches. Certainly, the Obama and the Bush administrations have significantly divergent philosophies on ways to best secure the nation and protect it from terrorism.
A visual representation of the speeches created via wordle.net shows that while the president's speech was peppered with lofty rhetoric and broad ideals, he was focused on addressing one specific element of national security: the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison. Cheney, by contrast, framed his speech in the context of the current political debates but had the broader goal of defending the overarching policies of the eight-year administration to which he belonged.
Here is a picture of Obama's speech as seen by the words most common to appear:
Clearly, Guantanamo Bay overshadowed anything else the president had to say. "American" and "people" were two other words that featured prominently in the president's speech -- making it evident whom the president intended to address.
Mr. Obama said in his speech that there were "no easy answers" on what to do about moral and practical quandary of Guantanamo but that the military prison had "set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world."
While his central thoughts were bolstered by pragmatic language like "detainees," "security," "legal," "terrorists," and "administration," Mr. Obama devoted less breath to the principles underlying his goals. Words like "values," "institutions," "transparency," and "justice," were used far less.
Cheney, meanwhile, suggested in his speech that he wanted to respond to moments when Mr. Obama "faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years."
Those decisions were clearly based on one word: "terrorism." A visual representation of his speech shows in no uncertain terms that the events of 9-11 and the threat of terrorists defined his vice presidency.
You can look at that picture below:
While Cheney did react to Mr. Obama's interest in closing down the Guantanamo prison, he chose to devote most of his speech to defending the interrogation techniques the Bush administration enacted and the intelligence learned from them.
The two speeches may have been based in dueling philosophies, but their aims were different: While the president was focused on moving his administration forward with the closure of Guantanamo Bay, Cheney was more interested in explaining the past.
A visual representation of the speeches created via wordle.net shows that while the president's speech was peppered with lofty rhetoric and broad ideals, he was focused on addressing one specific element of national security: the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison. Cheney, by contrast, framed his speech in the context of the current political debates but had the broader goal of defending the overarching policies of the eight-year administration to which he belonged.
Here is a picture of Obama's speech as seen by the words most common to appear:

(www.wordle.net)
Clearly, Guantanamo Bay overshadowed anything else the president had to say. "American" and "people" were two other words that featured prominently in the president's speech -- making it evident whom the president intended to address.
Mr. Obama said in his speech that there were "no easy answers" on what to do about moral and practical quandary of Guantanamo but that the military prison had "set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world."
While his central thoughts were bolstered by pragmatic language like "detainees," "security," "legal," "terrorists," and "administration," Mr. Obama devoted less breath to the principles underlying his goals. Words like "values," "institutions," "transparency," and "justice," were used far less.
Cheney, meanwhile, suggested in his speech that he wanted to respond to moments when Mr. Obama "faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years."
Those decisions were clearly based on one word: "terrorism." A visual representation of his speech shows in no uncertain terms that the events of 9-11 and the threat of terrorists defined his vice presidency.
You can look at that picture below:

(www.wordle.net)
While Cheney did react to Mr. Obama's interest in closing down the Guantanamo prison, he chose to devote most of his speech to defending the interrogation techniques the Bush administration enacted and the intelligence learned from them.
The two speeches may have been based in dueling philosophies, but their aims were different: While the president was focused on moving his administration forward with the closure of Guantanamo Bay, Cheney was more interested in explaining the past.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 55 CommentsPosted by drrealitycheck
-------------------------------------------------------------
Naivite seems rampant among the libs.
For starters, these scumbags are not POW, they represents no country and their sole purpose is to kill us in the name of their religion by using any means available.
If you think for 1 sec that if we treated them right and they will treats ours right is extremely ignorant. It's their gods that dictates to them to destroy us regardless of any Conventions.
If anything, barrack gives the enemies greater comfort by letting them know that they's nothing to worry about once capture and they can keep their mouth shut without a care in the world.
Torture is defined by intent. What if I tell you that a person took a household drill and used it to put a hole into another person head, you'll say that's torture right? but in fact, he was call a hero! Context is everything!!
Now I'm hearing that Gregory Mankiw and former International Monetary Fund chief economist Kenneth Rogoff are encouraging the Fed to let inflation get out of control. Rogoff suggested the Fed adopt a whopping six percent inflation target!
All I read and hear about are stupid, unworkable ideas. I'm beginning to wonder if the REAL plan is to break the US to the point where we have to adopt international currency and give up our liberties. People may dislike Cheney, but he knew what he was talking about, and terrorists would fear having a man that meant business like he does. I know that it wouldn't have taken Cheney DAYS like Obama to free that captain from those pirates (zero comparison to REAL terrorists) it would have taken ONE phone call and the pirates would have been history.. Who the heck REALLY respects Obama? They are polite to his face, but laugh behind his back. I guess europeans don't admire his "coolness" or "swagga" as much as some Americans do. I would prefer someone that knew what he was doing. Nuf said. Can't wait to vote him OUT
Posted by alphaa10000
And my point is that since Lynch the outcome of their treatment towards our POW's is irrelevant to the way in which we treat their POW's. Regadless of how we treat theirs, ours have and always will be killed. If you honestly think that if we treat tthem any different it will change their view, then you're a fool.
Posted by rmoore17 at 5:11 AM : May 22, 2009
And you are one. What people are trying to say is the end does not justify the means. An extreme example would be the experiments carried out on the Jews and Concentration camp Prisoners by WW2 Germany. Good information was gained in areas such as hypothermia, but does that justify the experiments the test subjects went through. Few suffered that many could gain benefit but does that justify it? We were attacked on 9/11 and lost 3,000 people, but does that justify a war against a country who had nothing to do with the attack and the deaths of 4500+ US troops and thousands of innocent civilians? Is the loss of freedoms and possiblity of being wrongly targeted worth the false sense of security you think you have. No, you are the naive one. This is a much more complex issue than "you hit me so I hit you harder".
The Bush administration was amazingly ignorant in believing that you can stop terrorism by killing a few of them. All they really did is act as a recruitment incentive for more Islamic extremists to sign on to suicide missions. If they had bothered to study even the history of the USA, they would have seen that never works. But led by greed, stupidity, and arrogance (how often they all go together!) they led the USA to the brink of destruction.
It is incredible that there are still people that can accept their lie even after it has been demonstrated repeatedly that they knowingly and deliberately lied.
They are all guilty of treason and attempting to undermine the constitution. ("It's just a ******* piece of paper" - George W. Bush) If Obama was not just another politician, he would be leading the charge to put them all in prison for the rest of their lives.
83 percent of America rejects the Neocon plan!
17 percent of America still supports it!
Not much of a great devide!
Look at where Cheney gave his speach!
In front of a bunch of Duel passport holding AIPAC members who where his puppet masters that used him to get America to rid the middle east of Israeli enemys!
torture is about false confessions
and having a whipping boy to blame
for incompetently allowing the act to occur
5 deferal dick is a incompetent sadistic coward
now attempting to cover his tracks with more lies.
what about all those no bids, katrina and big pharma payoff, every thing dickie did was class warfare incompetent cronyism,
another crooked smile dick
Soy estupido. No tengo ninguna idea de la realidad. Mi mama hace caca.
Que faites vous? Je suis estupide.
Up until now President Obama has been learning the ropes in Washington. He does not know who his real friends are or even which friends are actually his enemies. Today's speeches change that just a little. He, along with all of us following this "pseudo-debate" can now be sure Cheney will say anything to support his position. The only things Cheney and his sidekick, Bush, have done in the past is create a war in the wrong place for the wrong reasons, help destroy our economy and destroy our honor and credibility in the world. Today we see that Cheney actually thinks posturing and excuses will contenue to work like the lies of the past tricked many into supporting their schemes.
The clear message is that our greatest enemies are right here in this country still trying to hide their sins by screaming patriotism.
The hidden message for me? I find that I have paid lipservice to supporting our President without getting out of my chair and fighting at his side (figuratively or literally) to bring our country's honor and credibility bact to its former status and to repair the damage to our economy caused by Mr. Cheney and his profit happy friends.
I think I need to change that to what ever extent possible. Now that we have voted for our new President and are now sitting back to see what happens, I think the next step is to offer our active assistance though both thoughts words and muscle to help make things right. President Obama has correctly laid out the path we should take to recovering what we once had. It is now time we clear the path and walk it to our new destiny.
Politics and policies can only do so much. Support via action must do the rest to help make our nation better than what has been perceived to be of late.
Posted by mh4cbs1 at 9:58 PM : May 21, 2009
Without wasting words --- Cheney is wrong.
Sorry... It is pretty sad when people can not realize that my rambling was intended to satirize the bizarre, hypocritical extremism of the NeoCon supporters -- the 'God Bless America' people who cheer Cheney/Bush when they butcher the citizens of other nations, while expecting that they can defeat terrorism while they generate so much hate and resentment.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 55 Comments