Dick Cheney and Putting Country First
Jan 1st, 2010 | 31 responses
Apparently I am not the only one who has taken umbrage at Dick Cheney’s shameful attack on President Obama, using the Christmas Day attempted attack on Northwest Flight 253 strictly for political gain.
Among Cheney’s outrageous accusations was his “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.”
In a Washington Post column yesterday, Eugene Robinson takes Dick Cheney to task and, of course, does a much better job than I tried to do in my “Tired of Defending Dick Cheney” post.
My hometown newspaper, the Austin American-Statesman, republished Robinson’s column this morning under the title “Resolve to put the country first.” The Washington Post title was “Dick Cheney’s lies about President Obama.”
While there is nothing factually wrong with the Post’s title, in the spirit of a New Year, of a new beginning, I prefer the Statesman’s title.
Aside from that, Robinson is right on target with every word, starting with:
It’s pathetic to break a New Year’s resolution before we even get to New Year’s Day, but here I go. I had promised myself that I would do a better job of ignoring Dick Cheney’s corrosive and nonsensical outbursts — that I would treat them, more or less, like the pearls of wisdom one hears from homeless people sitting in bus shelters.
But he is a former vice president, which gives him a big stage for his histrionic Rottweiler-in-Winter act. It is never a good idea to let widely disseminated lies and distortions go unchallenged. And the shrill screed that Cheney unloosed Wednesday is so full of outright mendacity that, well, my resolution will have to wait.
Robinson then focuses on Cheney’s “big lie” mentioned above and provides plenty of evidence for Obama’s commitment to fighting the war against terrorists, a commitment that “has won the president nothing but grief from the liberal wing of his party, with more certainly to come.”
As I broached in my piece, Robinson asks: “Hasn’t anyone told Cheney that Obama is sharply boosting troop levels in Afghanistan in an attempt to avoid losing a war that the Bush administration started but then practically abandoned?”
On the Guantanamo issue, Robinson observes:
Interesting that Cheney should bring that up, because it now seems clear that the man accused of trying to blow up Northwest Flight 253, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was given training — and probably the bomb itself, which involved plastic explosives sewn into his underwear — by al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. It happens that at least two men who were released from Guantanamo appear to have gone on to play major roles as al-Qaeda lieutenants in Yemen. Who let these dangerous people out of our custody? They were set free by the administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
On Cheney’s anger that Obama does not use the phrase “war on terror” all the time, the way the Bush administration used to, Robinson says, “…Obama just specifies that we’re at war against a network of terrorists, on the sensible theory that it’s impossible to wage war against a tactic.”
Robinson concludes:
I can find reasons to criticize the administration’s response to the Christmas Day attack. Obama and his team were slow off the mark. Their initial statements were weak. Obama shouldn’t have waited three days to speak publicly, and when he did he should have shown some emotion.
But using a terrorist attack to seek political gain? I have a New Year’s resolution to suggest for Cheney: Ahead of your quest for personal vindication, put country first.
“Putting country first.” What an excellent New Year’s resolution—for all of us.
It also makes for a better title.
31 Responses to “Dick Cheney and Putting Country First”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV, dmf. dmf said: Put Country First – http://shar.es/aU0dc [...]
The origin of Al Qaida is American BigOil greed and malignant meddling in Middle Eastern politics for numerous decades to the point of a hostile invasion…before the one of Iraq… In, then, the figurative sense at least, it is BigOil that was behind the 9-11 bombings. This stuff goes way way back folks. Al Qaida didn't spring from religious origins, it found a foothold there but that was not its origin. It's origin was BigOil's meddling there to the point of subjegating those people into a corner where they felt that lashing out was their last resort.
Walk a mile in their moccasins. Think how we would feel if the situation was reversed with a natural resource only America had that they, more powerful than we, wanted and forcefully took? We would be pissed off as hell. We would've done worse in retaliation as they labelled us “terrorists”. Walk a mile in their moccasins.
That's why Af/Pak is a joke and so is trying to stamp out Al Qaida. The only way to stamp them out is to reverse the importance of their resource, oil, and abandon that fuel as the preferred fuel of transportation and industry. You want to watch Al Qaida disappear? That's how you get it done without losing a soul on the battlefield. Obama, blundering and ignoring the root of the weed known as “Al Qaida” has it totally wrong trying to run around like a fox chasing its tail trying to cut off the dandelion tops as they appear.
Cheney? He is the poster-child, the frontman for the actual enemy.
It's hard to ignore a man who's words can still force a president to send kids to die in a losing fight. The whack-a-mole “war on terror” will continue until the US is completely depleted of resources or the people actually open their eyes and realize that the Cheney's of the world want nothing more than to perpetuate a conflict that has no possibility of victory. Yes Silhouette, oil is the root, is there any wonder that nothing is being done on any of the fronts to ween the population off the addiction, it's the key to two major industries.
Bush/Cheney hater Eugene Robinson of the liberal Washington Post doesn't like Dick Cheney either. Wow, what a shock.
It's like watching the moths attack a candle
All of you are right.
We never should have tried to christianize those 7th Century peasants and their Islamic war on the West which has lasted for over 1000 years. And us in the name of god and oil. Get out now.
But everybody, including Cheney, is tired of our stone-less Professor Spock who stands for nothing but himself.
Dorian De Wind
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why it was perfectly ok for ex-VP Gore to rip into President Bush but somehow a great source of “umbrage” for ex-VP Cheney to criticize President Obama.
If you don't like Cheney, fine, say so. But there's no need to dance around waving chicken entrails like you're trying to ward off the Great Satan who just showed up at your daughter's wedding reception. The bar was set at an amply low outrage level by Gore's prior actions.
Are we going to be treated to a third article of outrage tomorrow when you find someone else who agrees with you about Teh Very Evil Mr. Cheney? If so, it's going to be a long long year
Hey, this great for them, right or wrong, it provides a neat smoke screen to hide some of the weaknesses in this admin and congress. And I'm sure the Reps would do the same thing if they were the ones in power. It's “the Game”.
Shame on you, an ear joke in the middle of this serious political stuff.
I think somebody charismatic, respected and able to get the press coverage should always be available to rebut, criticize, analyze or whatever, the other party's president, staff, appointees. Until someone like that emerges, I think he has to do. (He can't help looking like Dr. Strangelove.)
lol, hey, what other VP has shot someone in the face and can still keep a straight one when talking about keeping us safe?
“But there's no need to dance around waving chicken entrails like you're trying to ward off the Great Satan who just showed up at your daughter's wedding reception..”
dear damav, have you ever considered starring with Steve Martin or… being produced by Mel, 'history of the world' guy. You are funny often. Thanks for the levity in the midst of otherwise serious issues
Cheney certainly overreached, but thats a minor issue compared to two things, the lack of progress in Security measures under both the Bush and Obama administrations, and the lack of leadership in Obama's initial declaration where he failed to link the attempted bomber with Al Queda and the war on Terror.
Cheney is an ex Vice President, all that makes him is a more informed arm chair pundit, Obama is the President now, his mistakes from this point on have real consequences. He didn't do a total flop or anything, just turned in a substandard performance, he can recover and hopefully will learn from his initial mistake, before it becomes a larger one.
Mr. or Mrs. DaMav:
Thank you for addressing your questions and comments to me personally. I appreciate that and will do my best to address them all.
I am sorry if I missed you asking that question before. However, I don't believe that I even mentioned Gore in my post, nor do I know what specific instance of Mr. Gore “ripping into” Bush you are referring to. Having said that, I believe—and I am sure you agree with me—that in our country “it is perfectly ok for ex-VP Gore to rip into President Bush.” And if he did, I am also sure that plenty of Conservatives did take “umbrage” at that, and expressed their disagreements with Mr. Gore freely and eloquently.
Since I am a Democrat and support the policies of President Obama, I do take umbrage when the president is, in my opinion, unfairly and unashamedly attacked. I am sorry if you don't agree with that.
You are perfectly correct that I don't like Cheney. As a matter of fact, I have an intense dislike for the man. I am sure that you have similar dislikes for other politicians. I don't know what “chicken entrails” you are referring to, but I will freely express my opinion about this man and what I consider his views and his vile attacks on the president, as you are free to–and have done so–express your disagreement and disgust with me and with my opinions.
As a matter of fact, next time Cheney makes outrageous and false attacks on the president, I will indeed express my disageement with such, as I am sure you will do so with mine.
Isn't this a great country?
Again, thank you for your comments.
Dorian de Wind
By the way, your name…?
Wow, what a nice thing to say. Thank you.
I've got no problem with anyone speaking their mind, including any of our prior VPs. It was you objecting to Mr Cheney making his comments.
I simply pointed out that Gore had already set the bar to a rather low level so their was no need for an excessive level of umbrage being bandied about.
“He betrayed this country!” Mr. Gore shouted into the microphone at a rally of Tennessee Democrats here in a stuffy hotel ballroom. “He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place.”
The speech had several hundred Democrats roaring their approval for Mr. Gore
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0209-01…
You said: You are perfectly correct that I don't like Cheney. As a matter of fact, I have an intense dislike for the man.
Whoa! Good guess on my part eh? What could have given it away?
You are wrong however about one thing in regard to me. I have no “disgust” for you or your opinions at all. Rather I find them rather amusing for their blindly passionate one sided moral outrage. When it comes to industrial class umbrage, you da man. You even fire off umbrage at a light hearted joke about chicken entrails. How can I not enjoy the show?
And with apologies to Mr Zimmerman…
My name it means nothing, my age it means less
The country I come from is called the Midwest
I value my privacy, what little I have
And the name you can call me, is simply DaMav
Noted. Thank you for your frankness.
Dorian de Wind
I offer my sincere respect for your response.
I'm male. And old fashioned as well. Hold the roses, bring on the brass knuckles
So much far-right hypocrisy, so little time to deconstruct it all. Cheney? Just another aging, bitter, reactionary who can't cope with being out of power.
Dick Cheney: bitter, hateful, incompetent, delusional FAILURE.
Dear Texas Democrat,
You have spawned an interesting discussion and have encountered an interesting antagonist in our male compatriot, DaMav.
My poor disjointed brain, suffering as it does from those many years of wanton debauchery (though never having touched a drop of Stella), holds an opinion less partisan of the oft-defiled and oft-revered Mr. Cheney.
To set the parameters, and as I believe you know, my ecclectic propensities led to my opposition to many of the strategic and tactical decisions of the Bush/Cheney “war on terror”. But, I do not see evil in either man. Rather, there is perhaps partisanship, particularly with Cheney, and a “pride of ownership” that recoils at, and then attacks those who would question either the sincerity or the efficacy of their efforts. They, Cheney in particular, built this policy and do not want their product re-worked, or questioned, or even renamed.
Does Cheney engage in partisan hyperbole? He does. Is hyperbole, by its nature, often false and always misleading? It is. But, does the adoption of partisan hyperbole equate to evil intent? Well, I think not. Cheney is an old man who has been much maligned, at least, I suspect, from his perspective . Macho in character, and believing in the rightness of his view, sometimes falsely confusing his own opinion with fact, he strikes out at those who disparage what he views as his life's work and legacy. I cannot say that I would not do the same, had I accomplished something I regarded as worthy of defending.
As, dr. e would say, “just my two cents…”
Thank you, Sir.
As always, tidbits, thank you for your gracious thoughts (more than just “two-cents-worth). As we often do, we'll just have to agree to disagree?
Dorian
Hey Tidbits, thanks for pointing out that all our enemies have to be evil, the devil,or whatever, they just have a strong counterpoint.
However, you better watch out with that “old man” stuff, it makes your understanding statements weak.
From an old duck.
Dear Old Duck.
No agism intended. Just my usual politically incorrect way of making a point.
Best,
Old Dog
We are at WAR alright. The Enemy is are the Republicans for all the c
We are at WAR alright. The Enemy is are the Republicans for all the cooperation we are getting.
second time arond…
Woof.
for all the cooperation we are getting.”
Who's we? Any group that has you as a member is a group of one.
Turning on me, are ya Duck?
Duck's are not loyal unless fed properly. BTW: I am a Rep., so I am allowed to flip-flop.
How am I supposed to soar with eagles accompanied by a Duck ,…..Duck?