Why Cheney attacks
By: Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei
February 13, 2010 03:09 PM EST
Politico
Former Vice President Cheney will appear on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, and it’s a safe bet what he will say: President Barack Obama projects weakness to terrorists and puts American lives at risk.
It’s the kind of brutal charge — nuance-free and politically explosive — that has become a Cheney specialty since he left office 13 months ago.
Cheney’s broadsides on Afghanistan policy, detention and surveillance policies, and Obama’s general philosophy about the U.S. role in a dangerous world inevitably dominate the news. No other figure in Republican politics has equal ability to drive debate on national security, rally Obama critics and force the administration to respond. On Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden will be countering Cheney on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Joe Biden. Amazing that Obama trusts him enough to actually speak - then again, keeping all his meetings private / secret, may indicate Obama only trusts him so far. On the other hand, Biden is the best tool to send out. He goes on forever, eventually wearing down his opponents in the media and in government so that by the end, everyone has given up. It is unquestionable - Biden lies, often and without distinction for reality or for the facts. He talks like he is the font of all knowledge
But the backlashes to Cheney have become every bit as vicious as his own attacks. Some nonpartisan national security analysts have called Cheney’s critiques distorted and even demagogic. Some prominent liberal commentators have called them unpatriotic, and possibly mentally unbalanced. Even a conservative Republican senator respected on foreign policy issues recently called Cheney’s criticism of Obama unfair.
The former vice president’s success in driving the Obama debate has prompted a secondary debate of its own: Why does Cheney do it?
Cheney associates say he abandoned plans for a sedate post-Bush administration retirement of fly-fishing and memoir writing because he is genuinely concerned that Obama is a weak leader who is responding to political pressures in modifying war and terror policies that Cheney himself was instrumental in crafting.
Cheney believes his own words apply opposite pressures that can either force Obama to think twice or hold him accountable if he doesn’t.
“You’ve seen the national-security debate shift, both because of the facts and the specifics that he has been able to marshal and speak about, but also because he’s given strength and support to others who are speaking out,” said a source close to Cheney who declined to be named.
“You’ve seen the American people have a much better understanding of what the different policy choices are and were than they would have if he hadn’t been speaking out. It’s forced the Obama administration to be much more rigorous in defending its own policy decisions and choices,” this adviser added.
But Cheney’s decision to stay as pugilist in the political ring has a cost. The kind of elder-statesman aura that sometimes falls around high officials once out of office won’t soon be enjoyed by Cheney.
This may not matter much to a politician who seems indifferent to the indignation of editorial boards and relishes offending liberal pieties. His natural temperament is goaded by his influential adviser, daughter Liz Cheney, who in television appearances is even more combative than her father in taking on Obama.
I see a future here - Liz Cheney is the evil Rasputin and Dick Cheney, the mastermind behind the Bush doctrine, isn't really Dick, it's Liz. I know that Dick Cheney probably needs to consult on what Obama has done recently.
But Cheney’s ability to influence policy — as opposed to influencing cable-news programming — may be dulled by his insensitivity to timing and penchant for rhetorical bombast, with such quotes as describing Obama as “a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing.”
There was a furious response from not only liberal commentators but also establishment foreign policy analysts in December, after Cheney weighed in shortly after the attempted suicide bombing of a Northwest Airlines jetliner with a statement that asserted: “We are at war, and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society.”
In fact, Obama said in his inaugural address, “Our nation is at war.” He has also doubled the Bush-Cheney troop commitment to Afghanistan.
Is it possible, understanding that the American people believe we are at war (in large part because every jihadist says they are at war and we hear it quite often after they have slaughtered scores of innocents) and even though Obama does not believe we are at war, but rather that we are 'targeting selective individuals who are not very good muslims and have been misbehaving' - if you said what you believe is the case, do you think your miserable approval ratings would fall further? Ah - let me give you a hint. Carter (in December 1980) and Nixon (in the days before he chose to walk away rather than the humiliation of impeachment) had widespread support compared to the individual who would say such a thing. Doesn't mean a thing that he said it. He wants approval. Or we could parse words and meaning - Obama believes we are at war against a few dozen (relatively) bad people who need to be apprehended and tried in a court. Listening to (or ratehr reading) his speeches in Turkey and Egypt, you would never know we are 'at war'.
“Listening to former Vice President Cheney attack President Obama's strategic failures in the war on terror feels a little surreal; even from Cheney's point of view, the Bush administration's record was at best a very mixed bag,” responded Walter Russell Mead, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in POLITICO’S “Arena” forum.
Several weeks earlier, after Cheney accused Obama of “dithering” during his review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, Sen. Dick Lugar, an Indiana Republican with major influence on foreign policy, told Bloomberg TV that Cheney was being “unfair.”
Another Republican, former Rep. Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma, defended Obama’s approach to POLITICO and said, “Cheney was wrong — and outrageously so — to so cavalierly dismiss public opinion” in managing war policy when he was in power.
Stephen M. Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard University, was more succinct: “Have you, at long last, no shred of decency left? Oh, never mind. Silly question.”
In interviews for this article, some of Cheney’s harshest critics said the origins of his Obama criticism may be more psychological than political. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann said in an e-mail to POLITICO that Cheney has been “shrill, totally unpatriotic and sounding more concerned with torture and interrogation than with results and intelligence.”
“I think he may believe that only his vision can save America, and thus anything, including lying to America, is justifiable,” Olbermann wrote. “This is, I believe, called ‘a Messiah Complex.’”
Andrew Sullivan, who writes “The Daily Dish” blog on The Atlantic.com, wrote in an e-mail for this story: “Cheney's unprecedentedly aggressive approach ... reflects his own knowledge that he has committed war crimes of a very grave sort, war crimes that at some point could lead to prosecution and will undoubtedly lead to historical infamy.”
“If that becomes the prevailing narrative — because it is true — he will go down in history as a man who betrayed the very core principles of Western civilization out of panic and then covered it up,” Sullivan continued. “So he has to change the subject and launch this kind of P.R. campaign to throw everyone off the scent. ... Cheney is cornered. He knows justice is coming, and he knows that one day the full truth will come out and there will be no hiding. Until then, he will fight and fight and break every taboo that respect for the Constitution and for civil discourse requires.”
Andrew, at times you make utterly no sense. Cheney, has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, and setting aside how you know this and what you know, Cheney's constant barrage against Obama and his weakening of our in place intelligence apparatus to prevent another attack is really not against Obama as much as it is designed to distract from the real issue - Cheneys crimes against humanity. Is that it? What if, Andrew, Cheney hasn't committed any crimes against humanity. What does that do to your entire argument, if that is indeed the basis? Judging much, judgmental, of course only based upon facts, evidence.
Sullivan has been one of the leading voices criticizing the news media — and POLITICO specifically — for giving Cheney a platform for his rhetorical blasts in interviews without challenging his premises and also forcing him to answer for his own alleged misdeeds in office.
Critics say Cheney should not allowed to press Obama without being pressed to defend his own record. A November report from the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee asserted that Osama bin Laden had been “cornered” and “within our grasp” at Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in December 2001, but was allowed to escape when U.S. commandos’ “calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected.”
[And of course Cheney was in charge of on the ground actions in Afghanistan, having taken control from somone who had only been in control for three months and must have known every nook and crany of that mountainous region. This of course was in-bounds as go complaints because we all know that Cheney took control of troop movement and weapons and bombing and the MREs the troops received, and ...]
At the same time, Cheney mostly has refused to acknowledge mistakes or culpability, declaring on the day in May that he and Obama delivered back-to-back speeches: “For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history — not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them.”
Despite the calls from some quarters for the media to take away Cheney’s megaphone, it seems clear that the former vice president will attract coverage — and rightly so — for the indefinite future.
He remains a central force in politics; the co-architect of two wars and a series of anti-terror policies that have largely been retained by this administration.
The White House, attuned to Cheney’s appearance, countered by making Biden available from Vancouver, where he is leading the U.S. delegation during the opening weekend of the Winter Olympics. He’ll tape a pre-emptive interview Saturday with NBC’s David Gregory for “Meet the Press,” to air opposite “This Week.” Then Biden will go live Sunday at 10:30 a.m. ET with CBS’s Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” to rebut Cheney’s points and defend the current administration’s record.
Look for Biden to argue — by making the positive case for the current White House, without attacking his predecessor directly — that Cheney’s charges don’t square with the reality of the Obama administration’s actions, that Cheney has been unwilling to admit that the focus on Iraq diverted vital resources from the war in Afghanistan, that facts and experts rebut Cheney’s claims about national security and interrogation and that Cheney is wrong about the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The dueling appearances highlight one of the ironies of the Cheney offensive: Many liberals feel Obama has largely embraced the Bush approach to terrorism policy. But Cheney feels Obama is essentially dismantling his work. The truth is somewhere in between, but clearly not as bad as Cheney would have people think.
Obama still has not shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention center, or the domestic surveillance program or the program for trying some terrorists in military tribunals. He extended —not eliminated — the Patriot Act and reportedly has secretly used drones to assassinate more terrorists than the Bush administration did. He increased troops in Afghanistan and has not drawn down troops in Iraq any faster than Bush would have if he had another term in office.
In this light, it's hard to see the Cheney caricature of Obama as a weak accommodationist who wants to talk his way out of terror threats. At the same time, Obama has pulled back on what he sees as the most inexplicable overreaches of the Bush-Cheney years — the “enhanced interrogation techniques” (“torture,” to critics) and the with-us-or-against-us rhetoric.
So is Cheney’s rhetoric in bounds?
Former U.S. Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Nebraska Democrat who is now president of The New School in New York City, said that despite his disagreements with what Cheney says, “I think it’s entirely appropriate, and I certainly think that he contributes to the public debate. At the same time, I very much appreciate the approach that former President [George W.] Bush has taken, which is to be very respectful, even though it seems like he’s constantly being criticized.”
Dana Perino, Bush’s last White House press secretary, said the vice president “packs a punch” whenever he speaks out and shouldn’t feel constrained.
“No one else is shy about commenting about us,” Perino said. “The fact that we have been very effective at pushing back is something to be commended.”
Cheney's critics are adamant the approach should only be condemned.
Mr. Allen and Mr. VandeHei,
It appears, based upon the content of this article, that you agree with Obama on a great deal. You do not believe we are at war with Islamo-fascists who wish to slaughter you like a pig, unless you prostrate yourself at their feet and beg for your survival. You believe that there are a few bad apples out there who need to be apprehended and punished for their bad behavior. You believe that the policies enacted by Bush over six years, were over-done, and not very effective; unlike Obama's actions in the last year - all prudent and reasonable, timed well, and effective.
You believe Obama has rebuilt relations around the world, engaged our allies and is generally making everything and everywhere a better place than it was during the Bush administration. You believe Obama's foreign policy is prudent.
You believe the domestic policies / actions Obama would LIKE to inflict upon us are all reasonable, prudent, and not at all socialist in nature / style / form, or function.
But, Mr's Allen and VandeHei, what if you are wrong - Cheney is right, and these out of bounds complaints are not so out of bounds. In that case, your article would be very clearly propaganda for Obama as it is, at best, dismissive of Cheney's argument, and in fact mock him at times between casting him as either the disenchanted unhappy criminal or the war hawk who refuses to shut up.
I happen to agree with Cheney's observations, as do the facts - you may wish to bone up on them before Obama tosses you another treat.
obama
Showing posts with label Cheney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cheney. Show all posts
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Monday, July 13, 2009
CIA v Congress. The Loser: The American People
Former Agents Say Stop Picking on the CIA
Some Say National Security Could Be Put at Risk if Congress Ask Too Many Questions
By JOHN HENDREN and JONATHAN KARL
WASHINGTON, July 12, 2009—
ABC News
Former spies and some political leaders are saying that a lack of trust between Congress and the CIA is putting the county's security in jeopardy.
"It's one of the last nails in the CIA's coffin. It's finished. It's over. It's done," said former Central Intelligence Agency operative Robert Baer, whose exploits in the Middle East was the model for George Clooney's role in "Syriana."
The intelligence agency is back in the hot seat again after reports today that the agency, for eight years, withheld information from Congress on a secret counterterrorism program on the direct orders of then Vice President Dick Cheney.
Also today, word came that Attorney General Eric Holder is likely to push forward with a criminal investigation into the Bush administration's interrogation practices on suspected terrorists.
"I know I've been lied to," Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., said.
The rift between Congress and the CIA has been so bitter that when analysts have headed to Capitol Hill, the agency gave them this stock response: "I'm sorry, but I will be unable to continue our dialogue if you continue to question my integrity or that of my agency."
"The danger is today that we might go too far," Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. "And that could cause us to not have that critical bit of intelligence that could protect this country."
Not all intelligence experts agree.
"There's absolutely no reason to believe that congressional oversight will lead to terrorist attacks," said former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke and ABC consultant. "And that's essentially what some people are saying & morale will go down and we'll be risk averse, and we won't talk to the FBI, we won't do our jobs and we'll all die of terrorist attacks. That's way exaggerated."
Clarke added that the "CIA has become a master of saying to Congress: 'If you do your job and supervise us it will hurt our morale. If our morale is hurt we won't be able to do our job.' That is largely a myth."
Why is he the go-to guy on these matters. Why? He has a very big mouth.
CIA insiders say they haven't seen anything like this since the 1970s, when the Church Committee probed extreme tactics such as hiring the mafia to kill Cuba's Fidel Castro.
"We're heading back into this Frank Church atmosphere in this Senate and in this Congress, where, basically, where people use the CIA as a whipping boy," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.
The congressional hearings lead to new rules barring the FBI and CIA from sharing intelligence -- rules now blamed for allowing Sept. 11 hijackers to carry out their attacks.
"You have people running for the doors there, continue running for the doors, and it's going to hurt our national security," Baer said. "It's going to interfere with stopping another 9/11."
With rising criticism and poisoned relations with Congress, the agency's headquarters feel like a morgue, he says.
Another blow for morale could come if Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department go through with an investigation of CIA interrogators trying to find out if they broke the law by torturing detainees and going beyond the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, like waterboarding, that were approved by the Bush administration.
Officials say the appointment of a special prosecutor is likely, raising the possibility of high-profile prosecutions of career CIA operatives. Republicans say that's a bad idea.
"This continued attack on the CIA and our intelligence gathering organizations is undermining the morale and capacity of those organizations to gather intelligence," Gregg said.
This comes as Democrats in Congress are vowing their own investigation into the agency's failure to tell Congress about a secret program that went into the planning stage shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"To have a massive program that is concealed from the leaders in Congress is not only inappropriate; it could be illegal," said Majority Whip Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
When the current CIA director Leon Panetta found out about it, he scrapped the program and briefed the Congressional intelligence committees. One Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says Panetta told them that Cheney had ordered the program kept secret.
"He was told the vice president had ordered that the program not be briefed to the Congress," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "I think that is a problem obviously."
There's been no comment from Cheney, but the former vice president's allies say the agency did not need to brief Congress because the program had not yet gone into operation.
The swirl of investigations seems to be exactly what President Obama has repeatedly said he does not want.
"I think that we should be looking forward, and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively," Obama said in April.
But looking backward is exactly what is happening. With a special prosecutor likely to be named and congressional Democrats preparing their own investigations, the debate over the Bush administration's actions after the Sept. 11 attacks remains front-and-center in Washington.
And why wouldn't it ... it allows Democrats to resurrect the Evil Bush, just in time for midterm elections (and yes, they are that political). Worse - Panetta is no longer DCI ... he is a political puppet of the WH and everyone knows what role he is now playing (including CIA employees).
Wouldn't your morale declien if your DCI was nothing more than a political operative, interested not in the agency and morale but in scoring political points. How can employees of CIA accomplish tasks that need to be done if they are constantly monitored - either by their political operative (DCI) or by Big Mouths in Congress - who, as soon as a briefing is given, rush out to make calls to their sources in the media.
Obama said Yes he would conduct investigations, then he said NO, then came the political heat from his backers, and now he is back to saying he may, and Eric Holder is about to proceed with a (from the article) 'Special Prosecutor'.
I know we have been lied to and the lies have come from ... CONGRESS, not CIA. Why on earth would we want more people briefed by CIA - there were at least three leaks for the NY Times story - of people who KNEW what was told to Congress (they were in the briefing or had access to the details) - pretty clear who their paychecks are signed by.
This fiasco should signal a clear sign to the American people - we need to clean out the Congress in 2010.
Obama
Some Say National Security Could Be Put at Risk if Congress Ask Too Many Questions
By JOHN HENDREN and JONATHAN KARL
WASHINGTON, July 12, 2009—
ABC News
Former spies and some political leaders are saying that a lack of trust between Congress and the CIA is putting the county's security in jeopardy.
"It's one of the last nails in the CIA's coffin. It's finished. It's over. It's done," said former Central Intelligence Agency operative Robert Baer, whose exploits in the Middle East was the model for George Clooney's role in "Syriana."
The intelligence agency is back in the hot seat again after reports today that the agency, for eight years, withheld information from Congress on a secret counterterrorism program on the direct orders of then Vice President Dick Cheney.
Also today, word came that Attorney General Eric Holder is likely to push forward with a criminal investigation into the Bush administration's interrogation practices on suspected terrorists.
"I know I've been lied to," Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., said.
The rift between Congress and the CIA has been so bitter that when analysts have headed to Capitol Hill, the agency gave them this stock response: "I'm sorry, but I will be unable to continue our dialogue if you continue to question my integrity or that of my agency."
"The danger is today that we might go too far," Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. "And that could cause us to not have that critical bit of intelligence that could protect this country."
Not all intelligence experts agree.
"There's absolutely no reason to believe that congressional oversight will lead to terrorist attacks," said former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke and ABC consultant. "And that's essentially what some people are saying & morale will go down and we'll be risk averse, and we won't talk to the FBI, we won't do our jobs and we'll all die of terrorist attacks. That's way exaggerated."
Clarke added that the "CIA has become a master of saying to Congress: 'If you do your job and supervise us it will hurt our morale. If our morale is hurt we won't be able to do our job.' That is largely a myth."
Why is he the go-to guy on these matters. Why? He has a very big mouth.
CIA insiders say they haven't seen anything like this since the 1970s, when the Church Committee probed extreme tactics such as hiring the mafia to kill Cuba's Fidel Castro.
"We're heading back into this Frank Church atmosphere in this Senate and in this Congress, where, basically, where people use the CIA as a whipping boy," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.
The congressional hearings lead to new rules barring the FBI and CIA from sharing intelligence -- rules now blamed for allowing Sept. 11 hijackers to carry out their attacks.
"You have people running for the doors there, continue running for the doors, and it's going to hurt our national security," Baer said. "It's going to interfere with stopping another 9/11."
With rising criticism and poisoned relations with Congress, the agency's headquarters feel like a morgue, he says.
Another blow for morale could come if Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department go through with an investigation of CIA interrogators trying to find out if they broke the law by torturing detainees and going beyond the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, like waterboarding, that were approved by the Bush administration.
Officials say the appointment of a special prosecutor is likely, raising the possibility of high-profile prosecutions of career CIA operatives. Republicans say that's a bad idea.
"This continued attack on the CIA and our intelligence gathering organizations is undermining the morale and capacity of those organizations to gather intelligence," Gregg said.
This comes as Democrats in Congress are vowing their own investigation into the agency's failure to tell Congress about a secret program that went into the planning stage shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"To have a massive program that is concealed from the leaders in Congress is not only inappropriate; it could be illegal," said Majority Whip Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
When the current CIA director Leon Panetta found out about it, he scrapped the program and briefed the Congressional intelligence committees. One Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says Panetta told them that Cheney had ordered the program kept secret.
"He was told the vice president had ordered that the program not be briefed to the Congress," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "I think that is a problem obviously."
There's been no comment from Cheney, but the former vice president's allies say the agency did not need to brief Congress because the program had not yet gone into operation.
The swirl of investigations seems to be exactly what President Obama has repeatedly said he does not want.
"I think that we should be looking forward, and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively," Obama said in April.
But looking backward is exactly what is happening. With a special prosecutor likely to be named and congressional Democrats preparing their own investigations, the debate over the Bush administration's actions after the Sept. 11 attacks remains front-and-center in Washington.
And why wouldn't it ... it allows Democrats to resurrect the Evil Bush, just in time for midterm elections (and yes, they are that political). Worse - Panetta is no longer DCI ... he is a political puppet of the WH and everyone knows what role he is now playing (including CIA employees).
Wouldn't your morale declien if your DCI was nothing more than a political operative, interested not in the agency and morale but in scoring political points. How can employees of CIA accomplish tasks that need to be done if they are constantly monitored - either by their political operative (DCI) or by Big Mouths in Congress - who, as soon as a briefing is given, rush out to make calls to their sources in the media.
Obama said Yes he would conduct investigations, then he said NO, then came the political heat from his backers, and now he is back to saying he may, and Eric Holder is about to proceed with a (from the article) 'Special Prosecutor'.
I know we have been lied to and the lies have come from ... CONGRESS, not CIA. Why on earth would we want more people briefed by CIA - there were at least three leaks for the NY Times story - of people who KNEW what was told to Congress (they were in the briefing or had access to the details) - pretty clear who their paychecks are signed by.
This fiasco should signal a clear sign to the American people - we need to clean out the Congress in 2010.
Obama
Monday, June 15, 2009
Leon Panetta: When will he leave CIA to spend more time with his family
Always read, and not only read, but try to figure out if something just isn't right in a story. Always.
Obama - weak on foreign policy, shredding our relations with Britain and other allies, weakening our intelligence services
Pelosi - liar liar pants on fire, claimed CIA never briefed her, claimed CIA lied to her, claimed ... and she is a liar. CIA has the forms/signatures which are signed at briefings indicating that everything was revealed, put on the table, nothing was secret or hidden by the Bush administration - Pelosi lied. She denied she lied but the proof exists and could at any minute make its way onto the front pages. CIA (Panetta) comes out and calls her a liar, says she knew, was told ...
White House - not happy that the Speaker may be taken down by her lies, thus weakening the White House, tying up Obama's precious time with the media on matters of Democrats lying to the American people, so ...
Leon Panetta is told by Obama (someone) to spend less time attacking Democrats and more time attacking Republicans who threaten the Obamessiah worship plans. Leon then removes himself from the position as CIA director - because in that capacity he does not have a political role. His role is rather limited: relations with the White House and Congress, approach Congress for money, manage the employees in CIA and keep monitoring of other intelligence services.
HIS ROLE IS NOT political and yet Leon Panetta just jumped into the political ring ... which is what CIA SHOULD NOT AND MUST NOT DO ... because then CIA is political and no liberal wants that (Can we all say Senator Frank Church). Yet that is exactly what Obama has forced Panetta to do, to make amends for his public take-down of Pelosi.
Cheney: I Hope Panetta Was 'Misquoted' in Claiming My Wish for Attack
After the CIA director apparently told The New Yorker that he thinks the former vice president is crossing his fingers for another attack on America, Dick Cheney says he hopes his "old friend" didn't really say those words.
FOXNews.com
Monday, June 15, 2009
Dick Cheney says he wants to know if he heard Leon Panetta correctly.
After the CIA director apparently told The New Yorker that he thinks the former vice president is crossing his fingers for another attack on America, Cheney said Monday he hopes his "old friend" didn't really say those words.
"I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted," Cheney said, in a written statement to FOX News. "The important thing is whether the Obama administration will continue the policies that have kept us safe for the past eight years."
Others were not quite willing to give Panetta the benefit of the doubt, as his politically charged quote stirred controversy on Capitol Hill.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called on Panetta to "retract immediately" his statement, arguing that the director crossed the line.
"I disagreed with the Cheney policy on interrogation techniques, but never did it cross my mind that Dick Cheney would ever want an attack on the United States of America," the former GOP presidential candidate told FOX News Monday. "And it's unfair, and I think that Mr. Panetta should retract, and retract immediately.
"By the way, I hear morale is not at an all-time high over at the CIA under Mr. Panetta's leadership," he said.
Panetta, a long-time Washington insider with scant intelligence experience, has been caught in the middle of a political war during his first few months on the job. First, he had to deal with morale issues as President Obama cracked down on the rules for detainee interrogations. Then he stepped up to dispute House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's allegation that the CIA misled Congress about the use of "enhanced" interrogation techniques.
This time, he's firing back against Cheney's frequent media appearances in which he's accused Obama of making America less safe.
According to The New Yorker, Panetta said Cheney "smells some blood in the water" on the security issue.
"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics," he said, according to the piece.
Asked about the statement, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs ducked.
"I'm not going to get into motivations. That's not what our business is. The president's concern is keeping the American people safe," Gibbs said Monday.
Panetta and Obama
Obama - weak on foreign policy, shredding our relations with Britain and other allies, weakening our intelligence services
Pelosi - liar liar pants on fire, claimed CIA never briefed her, claimed CIA lied to her, claimed ... and she is a liar. CIA has the forms/signatures which are signed at briefings indicating that everything was revealed, put on the table, nothing was secret or hidden by the Bush administration - Pelosi lied. She denied she lied but the proof exists and could at any minute make its way onto the front pages. CIA (Panetta) comes out and calls her a liar, says she knew, was told ...
White House - not happy that the Speaker may be taken down by her lies, thus weakening the White House, tying up Obama's precious time with the media on matters of Democrats lying to the American people, so ...
Leon Panetta is told by Obama (someone) to spend less time attacking Democrats and more time attacking Republicans who threaten the Obamessiah worship plans. Leon then removes himself from the position as CIA director - because in that capacity he does not have a political role. His role is rather limited: relations with the White House and Congress, approach Congress for money, manage the employees in CIA and keep monitoring of other intelligence services.
HIS ROLE IS NOT political and yet Leon Panetta just jumped into the political ring ... which is what CIA SHOULD NOT AND MUST NOT DO ... because then CIA is political and no liberal wants that (Can we all say Senator Frank Church). Yet that is exactly what Obama has forced Panetta to do, to make amends for his public take-down of Pelosi.
Cheney: I Hope Panetta Was 'Misquoted' in Claiming My Wish for Attack
After the CIA director apparently told The New Yorker that he thinks the former vice president is crossing his fingers for another attack on America, Dick Cheney says he hopes his "old friend" didn't really say those words.
FOXNews.com
Monday, June 15, 2009
Dick Cheney says he wants to know if he heard Leon Panetta correctly.
After the CIA director apparently told The New Yorker that he thinks the former vice president is crossing his fingers for another attack on America, Cheney said Monday he hopes his "old friend" didn't really say those words.
"I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted," Cheney said, in a written statement to FOX News. "The important thing is whether the Obama administration will continue the policies that have kept us safe for the past eight years."
Others were not quite willing to give Panetta the benefit of the doubt, as his politically charged quote stirred controversy on Capitol Hill.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called on Panetta to "retract immediately" his statement, arguing that the director crossed the line.
"I disagreed with the Cheney policy on interrogation techniques, but never did it cross my mind that Dick Cheney would ever want an attack on the United States of America," the former GOP presidential candidate told FOX News Monday. "And it's unfair, and I think that Mr. Panetta should retract, and retract immediately.
"By the way, I hear morale is not at an all-time high over at the CIA under Mr. Panetta's leadership," he said.
Panetta, a long-time Washington insider with scant intelligence experience, has been caught in the middle of a political war during his first few months on the job. First, he had to deal with morale issues as President Obama cracked down on the rules for detainee interrogations. Then he stepped up to dispute House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's allegation that the CIA misled Congress about the use of "enhanced" interrogation techniques.
This time, he's firing back against Cheney's frequent media appearances in which he's accused Obama of making America less safe.
According to The New Yorker, Panetta said Cheney "smells some blood in the water" on the security issue.
"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics," he said, according to the piece.
Asked about the statement, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs ducked.
"I'm not going to get into motivations. That's not what our business is. The president's concern is keeping the American people safe," Gibbs said Monday.
Panetta and Obama
Sunday, June 14, 2009
CIA: Cheney wants the US attacked, or invaded or nuked or drowned or ....
CIA chief believes Cheney almost wants US attacked
Sun Jun 14, 2009
WASHINGTON, June 14 (Reuters) - CIA director Leon Panetta says it's almost as if former vice president Dick Cheney would like to see another attack on the United States to prove he is right in criticizing President Barack Obama for abandoning the "harsh interrogation" of terrorism suspects.
"I think he smells some blood in the water on the national security issue," Panetta said in an interview published in The New Yorker magazine's June 22 issue.
"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."
Cheney, who was a key advocate in the Bush administration of controversial interrogation methods such as waterboarding, has become as a leading Republican critic of Obama's ban on harsh interrogations and his plan to shut the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
In a blistering May 21 speech, Cheney said Obama's reversal of Bush-era policies were "unwise in the extreme" that would make the American people less safe.
Panetta called Cheney's actions "dangerous politics."
He told The New Yorker he had favored the creation of an independent truth commission to look into the detainee polices of former President George W. Bush. But the idea died in April when Obama decided such a panel could be seen as politically vindictive.
OMG - I wonder, how many people on earth do not know that: Cheney, who was a key advocate in the Bush administration of controversial interrogation methods such as waterboarding ...
I cannot imagine there is one person on earth not aware of this fact. AND WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? Why does it need to be inserted, as if to argue against Cheney - anything he says is tainted by ... interrogation / waterboarding.
Why is the CIA Director commenting on political issues? Shouldn't he be watching his daughter and ensuring she isn't off with Chavez. That is as relevant as his idiotic comments.
And what about when Obama or Clinton or Biden were attacking the CIA, arguing the US was less safe as a result of actions taken by the Bush administration.
Bloody hypocrits.
I know I feel oh so much less safe now.
Obama
Sun Jun 14, 2009
WASHINGTON, June 14 (Reuters) - CIA director Leon Panetta says it's almost as if former vice president Dick Cheney would like to see another attack on the United States to prove he is right in criticizing President Barack Obama for abandoning the "harsh interrogation" of terrorism suspects.
"I think he smells some blood in the water on the national security issue," Panetta said in an interview published in The New Yorker magazine's June 22 issue.
"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."
Cheney, who was a key advocate in the Bush administration of controversial interrogation methods such as waterboarding, has become as a leading Republican critic of Obama's ban on harsh interrogations and his plan to shut the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
In a blistering May 21 speech, Cheney said Obama's reversal of Bush-era policies were "unwise in the extreme" that would make the American people less safe.
Panetta called Cheney's actions "dangerous politics."
He told The New Yorker he had favored the creation of an independent truth commission to look into the detainee polices of former President George W. Bush. But the idea died in April when Obama decided such a panel could be seen as politically vindictive.
OMG - I wonder, how many people on earth do not know that: Cheney, who was a key advocate in the Bush administration of controversial interrogation methods such as waterboarding ...
I cannot imagine there is one person on earth not aware of this fact. AND WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? Why does it need to be inserted, as if to argue against Cheney - anything he says is tainted by ... interrogation / waterboarding.
Why is the CIA Director commenting on political issues? Shouldn't he be watching his daughter and ensuring she isn't off with Chavez. That is as relevant as his idiotic comments.
And what about when Obama or Clinton or Biden were attacking the CIA, arguing the US was less safe as a result of actions taken by the Bush administration.
Bloody hypocrits.
I know I feel oh so much less safe now.
Obama
Friday, May 22, 2009
Obama: Inexperience, thoughtlessness = a dangerous policy
Inexperience, naivete ... a threat and a danger. The White House is not an on-the-job training program.
“Out of the loop” Joe Biden says decision to shut Guantanamo was “like opening Pandora’s Box”
Toby Harnden
May 22, 2009
The Telegraph
Thank goodness for Vice President Joe Biden. In one of the few amusing parts of the Wanda Sykes comedy routine at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, she said: "God forbid that Joe Biden falls into the hands of terrorists....We're done. Oh, they won't even have to torture him. All they have to do is go, 'How's it going, Joe?'"
Indeed. It seems that all a reporter has to do to find out about the pickle Barack Obama's is really in over his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison is to ask the veep, who was talking to the press at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo on the final day of his trip to the Balkans.
So will Obama fulfill his vow - announced amid great fanfare in an executive order on day two of his presidency - to close the facility by January 2010? "I think so," Biden responded, according to Newsweek's Holly Bailey.
So perhaps he will. Or perhaps not. We'll see.
Biden continued: "But, look, what the president said is that this is going to be hard. It's like opening Pandora's Box. We don't know what's inside the box."
He also said that "to the best of my knowledge" the number of prisoners "who are a real danger who are not able to returned or tried" has "not been established" by the Obama administration.
So he basically just confirmed his predecessor Dick Cheney's analysis that the decision was taken "with little deliberation, and no plan".
For those citizens who might be a tad concerned about hardened Islamist fighters being housed in jails on the American mainland, the veep suggested they should visit the Unabomber or Richard Reid at the Colorado's Supermax.
"There's a bit of a hysteria about, well, my God, these guys are so dangerous. Go to some maximum security cells if you want to know some dangerous people. Matter of fact, it might be an awakening to them."
Got that? Stop being hysterical and go buy a Greyhound ticket to the Supermax.
Rest assured though, Biden said that during his visits to Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo he'd discussed "the prospect of a detainee coming back to the region".
That's "a detainee", singular. There are currently some 240 at Gitmo.
Of course, the vice-president might have it all wrong. He prefaced his remarks by stating that he was "out of the loop".
Obama
“Out of the loop” Joe Biden says decision to shut Guantanamo was “like opening Pandora’s Box”
Toby Harnden
May 22, 2009
The Telegraph
Thank goodness for Vice President Joe Biden. In one of the few amusing parts of the Wanda Sykes comedy routine at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, she said: "God forbid that Joe Biden falls into the hands of terrorists....We're done. Oh, they won't even have to torture him. All they have to do is go, 'How's it going, Joe?'"
Indeed. It seems that all a reporter has to do to find out about the pickle Barack Obama's is really in over his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison is to ask the veep, who was talking to the press at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo on the final day of his trip to the Balkans.
So will Obama fulfill his vow - announced amid great fanfare in an executive order on day two of his presidency - to close the facility by January 2010? "I think so," Biden responded, according to Newsweek's Holly Bailey.
So perhaps he will. Or perhaps not. We'll see.
Biden continued: "But, look, what the president said is that this is going to be hard. It's like opening Pandora's Box. We don't know what's inside the box."
He also said that "to the best of my knowledge" the number of prisoners "who are a real danger who are not able to returned or tried" has "not been established" by the Obama administration.
So he basically just confirmed his predecessor Dick Cheney's analysis that the decision was taken "with little deliberation, and no plan".
For those citizens who might be a tad concerned about hardened Islamist fighters being housed in jails on the American mainland, the veep suggested they should visit the Unabomber or Richard Reid at the Colorado's Supermax.
"There's a bit of a hysteria about, well, my God, these guys are so dangerous. Go to some maximum security cells if you want to know some dangerous people. Matter of fact, it might be an awakening to them."
Got that? Stop being hysterical and go buy a Greyhound ticket to the Supermax.
Rest assured though, Biden said that during his visits to Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo he'd discussed "the prospect of a detainee coming back to the region".
That's "a detainee", singular. There are currently some 240 at Gitmo.
Of course, the vice-president might have it all wrong. He prefaced his remarks by stating that he was "out of the loop".
Obama
Thursday, April 23, 2009
BIDEN: Less Popular than Cheney
April 23rd, 2009
VP-Shock: Biden Less Popular than Cheney
Posted by David Paul Kuhn
Double take. Joe Biden is less popular than Dick Cheney. Well, in the first half year of the first term that is.
A slim 51 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Vice President Biden. Cheney was at 58 percent in July 2001. Al Gore, 55 percent in April 1993. The veep comparison comes courtesy of the Pew Research Center's latest report.
The public's favorable take on Biden declined 12 percentage points since January. And don't blame the GOP. Democrats' favorable view fell from 87 to 76 percent. Independents' view fell from 58 to 46 percent.
In time, it will likely prove no challenge for Biden to stay ahead of Cheney. Less than a third of Americans held a favorable view of Cheney when he left office in January.
Cheney
VP-Shock: Biden Less Popular than Cheney
Posted by David Paul Kuhn
Double take. Joe Biden is less popular than Dick Cheney. Well, in the first half year of the first term that is.
A slim 51 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Vice President Biden. Cheney was at 58 percent in July 2001. Al Gore, 55 percent in April 1993. The veep comparison comes courtesy of the Pew Research Center's latest report.
The public's favorable take on Biden declined 12 percentage points since January. And don't blame the GOP. Democrats' favorable view fell from 87 to 76 percent. Independents' view fell from 58 to 46 percent.
In time, it will likely prove no challenge for Biden to stay ahead of Cheney. Less than a third of Americans held a favorable view of Cheney when he left office in January.
Cheney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments