Attack and Truth

The White House has finally begun to push back against the right-wing campaign of lies and smears that began immediately after the Christmas Day aborted airline bombing and continue to this moment. In a post on the White House communications blog, Dan Pfeiffer responds to yesterday’s Politico interview with Dick Cheney in which Cheney accused Pres. Obama of “pretending we are not at war”:

There has been a lot of discussion online and in the mainstream media about our response to various critics of the President, specifically former Vice President Cheney, who have been coming out of the woodwork since the incident on Christmas Day.  I think we all agree that there should be honest debate about these issues, but it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers. Unfortunately too many are engaged in the typical Washington game of pointing fingers and making political hay, instead of working together to find solutions to make our country safer.

First, it’s important that the substantive context be clear: for seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq – a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion – Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda’s leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States. Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years.  It was President Obama who finally implemented a strategy of winding down the war in Iraq, and actually focusing our resources on the war against al Qaeda – more than doubling our troops in Afghanistan, and building partnerships to target al Qaeda’s safe-havens in Yemen and Somalia.  And in less than one year, we have already seen many al Qaeda leaders taken out, our alliances strengthened, and the pressure on al Qaeda increased worldwide.

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.

Second, the former Vice President makes the clearly untrue claim that the President – who is this nation’s Commander-in-Chief – needs to realize we are at War. I don’t think anyone realizes this very hard reality more than President Obama. In his inaugural, the President said “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.” In a recent speech, Assistant to the President for Terrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan said “Instead, as the president has made clear, we are at war with al-Qaida, which attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al-Qaida’s murderous agenda. These are the terrorists we will destroy; these are the extremists we will defeat.” At West Point, the President told the nation why it was “in our vital national interest” to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to fight the war in Afghanistan, adding that as Commander in Chief, “I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.” And at Oslo, in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the President said, “We are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land.”

There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference is this: President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it, and – unlike the last Administration – we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered.

The Deep Thinkers on the right respond with their usual dishonesty. Here is David Freddoso, saying, Good grief, how will it help keep Americans safe for Dick Cheney to condemn the attacks?

Don’t we already agree that the attack was an act of evil? And does anyone think that Dick Cheney — of all people — has reservations about condemning terrorists?And finally, can someone explain to me how it helps to have more statements of condemnation for the attackers? If we all stand in a circle and curse them unto the fourth generation, will it make America safer?

Of course, none of Freddoso’s admiring colleagues would think to ask Freddoso, or themselves, how it helps to have more statements from Cheney accusing Pres. Obama of being weak on national security. If the entire staff of National Review stand in a circle with Dick and Liz Cheney and chant in unison, “Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war?” will it make America safer?

Author: KATHY KATTENBURG

5 Comments

  1. The silent issue I glean from this article is why does Dick Cheney always appear so prepared to precisely attack the president just after one of these incidents happens?

    And in a possibly-related subject, what ever happened to David Headly?

    “U.S. citizen David Headley, aka Daood Gilani, who was arrested in connection with last year’s Mumbai terrorist attacks, may have been a double agent for the CIA at the time of the incident, according to U.S. journalists.

    More than 160 people were killed in the financial hub of Mumbai in three days of attacks by a group of 10 gunmen, beginning on November 26, 2008.

    Headley had allegedly helped plan the attack by conducting reconnaissance missions in Mumbai.”
    http://www.pakspectator.com/david-headley-terro
    *******
    Now it could be that Headly is a double-agent or it could be that he is supposed to take the fall for being one should he [or any other agent] get “caught”. With Dick's responses always so correographed and his mantra being that Obama is “pretending we're not at war”, could it be that these “double-agents” have the duty of maintaining the image of “at war” even while conflicts are seeming to ebb?

    Hard to tell with no CIA oversight. Particularly hard to tell when a good chunk of this covert operation still sings “hail to the chief” whenever Cheney walks by..

  2. Kathy,

    Why did your piece remind me of this?

    “Old Eolus would stifle his mad spleen,
    But could not; therefore all the billows green
    Toss'd up the silver spume against the clouds.
    The tempest came

    O what a load of misery and pain.” John Keats, *Endimion, Book Three.*

  3. Why did your piece remind me of this?

    Can't imagine. :-)

  4. It also reminded me of Ahab's dying solioquy in Moby Dick as so eloquently rendered by Ricardo Montelban (I think) in Star Trek, Wrath of Khan. But, that was too obvious.

  5. I think the New York Daily News hit on the real criticism here:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/12/30/

    Even so, Obama’s description of Abdulmutallab as an “isolated extremist” was remarkable and disturbing. This radicalized young Nigerian is nothing of the sort. He operated, in fact, as an Al Qaeda-recruited, Al Qaeda-supplied, Al Qaeda-directed foot soldier – as, to put it directly, an enemy combatant, and not as the criminal “suspect” of Obama’s description.

    Obama's later response was a bit better, but his initial response was a bit lacking, I'm not surprised he was criticized for such lackluster comment, although Cheney overreached a bit. Hopefully both Obama and Cheney will learn from this in the future.

Submit a Comment