Cheney Says Obama’s Policies Will Make U.S. Vulnerable To Terrorist Attack
So whoever seriously thought that former Vice President Dick Cheney would go quietly into the night or give the new President more than just two weeks to prove himself? If you did then here’s proof that those who practice the kind of baby-boomer-era derived “smart good guys us versus dumb and weak and dangerous guys them” politics won’t give it a rest — not even for a single month:
Former Vice President Dick Cheney warned that there is a “high probability” that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed.
In an interview Tuesday with Politico, Cheney unyieldingly defended the Bush administration’s support for the Guantanamo Bay prison and coercive interrogation of terrorism suspects.
There’s nothing wrong with Cheney defending his policies, which he sincerely believed were for the good of the country. But, using the political style to which he is accustomed, he goes into attack mode — less than three weeks into Obama’s term:
And he asserted that President Obama will either backtrack on his stated intentions to end those policies or put the country at risk in ways more severe than most Americans — and, he charged, many members of Obama’s own team — understand.
“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said.
Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”
Firstly, when did Obama or anyone in his administration claim that the policy was to “turn the other cheek?” They didn’t.
This is truly a breathtaking interview, if you follow American politics or American history.
You will find few instances of a former President or former Vice President going after someone who replaced them, even if the next administration greatly shifted policies. Most politicians when they leave office exercise a certain amount of “class” where they will for the good of the country and national unity not try to stir up resentments among their followers.
Cheney has no such goal:
Cheney called Guantanamo a “first-class program,” and “a necessary facility” that is operated legally and with better food and treatment than the jails in inmates’ native countries.
But he said he worried that “instead of sitting down and carefully evaluating the policies,” Obama officials are unwisely following “campaign rhetoric” and preparing to release terrorism suspects or afford them legal protections granted to more conventional defendants in crime cases.
The choice, he alleged, reflects a naive mindset among the new team in Washington: “The United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected. Sometimes, that requires us to take actions that generate controversy. I’m not at all sure that that’s what the Obama administration believes.”
PERSONAL NOTE: Yesterday I talked with a well-known blogger and told him that I feel the country will be far better off when all of the baby-boomers — practicing their Vietnam War era-based politics that was picked up and exploited effectively by Richard Nixon (read the book Nixonland
“The country will be better off when no more baby boomers are around to ruin our politics, ” I told him. “Of course, I hope I live to be 120 and that I’m the one baby boomer around to see the change.”
In terms of lifting the quality of our discourse into the realm of ideas and policies, baby boomers are not “The Greatest Generation.” My generation has proven to be in terms of lifting the quality of our discourse to be the greatest degeneration.
Could Cheney prove to be right?
Time will tell — but he isn’t willing to give any time in the interest of national unity. Just attack and claim the Obama administration is ready to “turn the other cheek” when there is nothing on record or even quoting unnamed sources that indicates that is under consideration as a policy.
It’s part of the political culture in which Cheney was raised.
13 Responses to “Cheney Says Obama’s Policies Will Make U.S. Vulnerable To Terrorist Attack”
It somehow lacks class to suggest that your opponent's policies are likely to be ineffective? This is somehow an ethical violation in your mind? I'm incredulous.
Cheney is saying nothing new, remarkable, or unexpected, nor is he saying anything unusual in American politics. This is how policy is discussed in the public forum.
Grow the hell up.
Coming from Cheney and his shady ties, that statement sounds more like a promise than an actual nebulous threat. Remember how the terrorists seem to pop up on cue? The long-lost Osama Bin Laden pops up conveniently recently when we're slacking in getting ramped up about backing Israel's latest command performance in Gaza?
Since Cheney just said this, look for a new 'threat” to pop up in the near future..
Joe I don't think those kinds of political tactics will ever go away. They are passed down with each generation now because they do seem to have traction. As for Cheney, after reading about his comments, my first thought was that if something does happen, I would point the finger at him, KBR and/or Blackwater, for having a part in it. Does no one care about the people in this country any more? The people struggling from day to day? Is scoring political points and doing everything under the sun possible to keep a president from succeeding more important than real life issues? It sure seems like it. If we have to go through this every 4 to 8 years with each side tripping up the other in order to gain political dominance, we're in for a world of hurt.
@philwynk, you grow up. Cheney's comments are not a sincere criticism of the Obama administration and you know it. He said them to be contrary and sew the seeds of fear like the Bush admin did when they were in power using the terror threat levels to distract the public from political scandals. In fact, I'll go a step further and say it's a deliberate set up for the future. This is NOT how policy is discussed in the public forum, except maybe on Fox.
You know, you just gotta wonder about a man named Richard who instead of choosing “Rich” or “Rick” as a nickname, opts for “Dick” instead…
It's like a warning to everyone who meets him from his own subconscious.. ; ) I wouldn't put it past the Dickster to make a few phone calls to make himself “be right” with respect to his warnings. You know how Dicks hate to be proven wrong…
Is that you, Mr. Cheney, anonymously commenting on this blog? No, I think Mr. Cheney has once again shown his true colors – an ascerbic, nasty, bitter old man who hates to be criticized or contradicted and is afraid history might show he was wrong. Cheney screwed the pooch after he was exposed in his post-Gulf War interview stating the many reasons it was a bad idea to take down Saddam Hussein. This interview proved to be almost Revelations-like in its accuracy after everything Cheney said would have happened in Iraq in 1991 was happening induring the post-Hussein Iraq of '03.
Go take a Valium, Mr. Cheney and enjoy Wyoming for the few remaining years left in your bitter, used up life.
Cheney is just keeping the pressure on.
I had an online conversation with Atta before 9/11. He told me he hated America and that they were going to fly a 747 into the world trade center. I tried to reason with him and explain that America is not perfect or innocent, but we are a positive influence in human civilization. He just kept ranting on about how evil America is and they were going to destroy us.
I am very thankful that Bush and Cheney were on watch for this conflict. I don't agree with everything they did, but I think they have done a pretty good job considering the circumstances.
I also think a change right now is good for America. I like Obama and hope he does a good job. I just hope he keeps our military industrial complex on the offensive until the war on terrorism is won. I was very happy to read about his capping exec pay, but that is another subject
“I just hope he keeps our military industrial complex on the offensive until the war on terrorism is won. “
At the risk of sounding like an SNL skit.
really? win the war on terror? really?
Wow earthling, you don't happen to feed at the BigOil trough now do you?…lol…
Get along little piggy. We know how Cheney's predictions come eerily true time after time and the routine is starting to wear thin. Cat's out of the bag. The real terrorists just left office…but oh how they try to keep a stranglehold of fear from beyond the political grave..even if it means calling more arabs to perform on cue…
[...] and un-indicted war criminal, ex-vice President Richard Cheney, is ranting from retirement. According to Mr. Cheney there is a “high probability” that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological [...]
Cheney and his cohorts did more damage to America's way of life than the terrorists did. There would have been no invasion of Iraq without VP Cheney and his assistants. And our reputation after Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo , and waterboarding is shot among allies and foes alike. Cheney was the best recruiting tool Al Queda had.
@djshay, I'm still batting 1000. Every time a leftie tells me “and you know it,” they're not just wrong, but exactly 180 degrees off the mark. Every single f'in' time.
Cheney did not solicit the interview. What's new here is not the Veep making comments, but reporters seeking out a recently retired office-holder and asking, point-blank, “What do you think of the policies that are replacing yours?” What did you expect him to say when asked?b”No, I chose my policies by throwing darts, any policy would have done as well?” Utter nonsense. He answered according to what he thought, honestly, just like any Republican would (Democrats, otoh, answer according to what focus groups tell them they want to hear.)
And besides, what the heck is controversial about saying “Terrorists want to attack us with WMDs?” Everybody knows this is true. Congress published a report saying it. Editorialists all over the country have published editorials saying it. Even TV and movie producers are producing movies based on the premise. This isn't “fear-mongering,” it's the default opinion among anybody in the US who's breathing.
You need a good, stiff dose of Occam's Razor. It's a heuristic maxim among philosophers that says “You don't have to invent alternative causes when you've got a perfectly sound, ordinary explanation in hand.” The default explanation is, somebody asked Cheney a question about his policies, and he answered it according to what he believes. It's a perfectly sane answer, it's the answer I'd have given if I were in his shoes, and the attempt to make it seem like something sinister and ominous is not just wrong, it's clinically certifiable.
Go get help.
Get a clue, cervelo. He didn't seek out the reporters, they sought him out. They asked him point-blank, “Why'd you do things the way you did,” and “What do you think of the policies that are replacing yours?” What'd you expect him to answer?
Everybody knows the terrorists want to nuke a western city if they can; I can come up with a dozen other sources saying exactly the same thing at the drop of a hat. There's nothing remotely uncivil or remarkable about his comments. He answered candidly and evenly, as he always does. For you folks to attempt to make something sinister out of the man simply answering the questions he was asked is simply insane.
I'll add this: if Gandelman et al can't show me their outraged editorials about the literally dozens of criticisms of a sitting President from Clinton, Gore, and Carter over the past 8 years, then they've absolutely lost the right to complain about Cheney answering the questions that some reporter put to him.