I cannot believe that Dick Cheney waited six whole days to criticize Barack Obama for waiting three days to make a non-hysterical public statement about the attempted airline bombing on Christmas Day. How could he let Pete Hoekstra get ahead of him on such an obvious opportunity to turn a national security event into a carnival of political grandstanding?
Cheney’s latest assault came in an interview with Politico in which he accused Pres. Obama of “pretending we are not at war” by, among other things, not using the term “war on terror”:
“As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.
“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But 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. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.”
Steve Benen suggests we “review a few pesky details“:
First, it was Cheney’s administration that released some of the alleged terrorists who plotted the attack into an “art therapy rehabilitation program” in Saudi Arabia, only to see them become terrorist leaders in Yemen. It was also Cheney’s administration that gave Abdulmutallab a visa to enter the United States in the first place.Second, let’s compare some “low-key responses.” President Obama addressed a failed terrorist attack three days after it occurred. Eight years ago, when a terrorist tried to blow up an airplane under nearly identical circumstances, then-President Bush waited six days before making brief, cursory public remarks. Five days after the attempted terrorist attack, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refused substantive comment altogether, telling reporters, “That’s a matter that’s in the hands of the law enforcement people.” A White House spokesperson would only say at the time that officials were “continuing to monitor events.”
Democrats, at the time, didn’t launch an assault against the Bush administration, and we didn’t see Al Gore condemning the White House. It simply didn’t occur to Democrats in 2001 to use the attempted mass murder of hundreds of Americans to undermine the presidency.
Steve also points to a piece James Fallows wrote a month ago, contrasting the post-election behavior of Dick Cheney with that of George W. Bush. After praising Bush for “maintain[ing] a dignified distance from public controversies [after the election] and [letting] the new team have its chance,” Fallows writes:
The former vice president, Dick Cheney, has brought dishonor to himself, his office, and his country. I am not aware of another former President or Vice President behaving as despicably as Cheney has done in the ten months since leaving power, most recently but not exclusively with his comments to Politico about Obama’s decisions on Afghanistan. (Aaron Burr might win the title, for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel, but Burr was a sitting Vice President at the time.) Cheney has acted as if utterly unconcerned with the welfare of his country, its armed forces, or the people now trying to make difficult decisions. He has put narrow score-settling interest far, far above national interest.
Dick Cheney is a disgrace.
And people are still listening to the disgraced former VP because….???
And people are still listening to the disgraced former VP because….???
Apparently, he speaks for a largish group of Obama-haters that is not unrepresented among our commenters here.
Good jab by the White House today: “it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers.”
“To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.”
Maybe he was busy in Hawaii trying to set up a hunting party with O. Or, maybe he just took his time as that is the new norm (perhaps).
I'm no fan of Cheney but this implied myth that no Democrat ever attacked Bush is ridiculous
Show where a Demo attacked W during the ShoeBomber incident…
“Show where a Demo attacked W during the ShoeBomber incident”
So you're just limiting it to THAT particular terrorist attack?
How about the constant attacks from the left after September 11th? These attacks (small in the beginning because they would lose vast appeal due to the raging patriotic surge and support of Bush) ended in the 9/11 commission suggestions. These suggestions (although mostly a good thing) were sidebarred with democrat jabs at Bush and his cowboy ways.
This being said, I still think that President Obama deserves no slack for this unless he fails to react. I'm confident that he will react. If it's not fast enough for Cheney, Dick, then tough! Cheney needs to shut up.
Of course Bush was heavily criticized. He earned it (with the help of people like Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, etc.). People need to work a little harder at differentiating between reflexive partisan attacks and well-deserved negative feedback. Unfortunately, the Bush apologists (even with the painfully obvious benefits of hindsight) still have trouble extracting themselves from the false equivalence arguments.
“People need to work a little harder at differentiating between reflexive partisan attacks and well-deserved negative feedback”
Granted.
Now show me where your “well-deserved negative feedback” included Republicans. The only example I can find is one lone dove, Ron Paul. Other than that, it was a consistent PARTISAN attack from the Democrats, exactly like that above with Cheney and others on the GOP side.
Well-deserving feedback would (or should) come from both sides. But in our present hyperpartisan mess, that doesn't always happen.
The only example I can find is one lone dove, Ron Paul.
2. Republican Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina
3. Republican Congressman Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland
4. Republican Congressman Jim Leach of Iowa
5. Republican Congressman John J. Duncan of Tennessee
6. Republican Congressman John N. Hostettler of Indiana
There are a few more dissident Iraq Republicans…