Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Dec 1, 2009 in International, Politics, War | 21 comments

Cheney Blasts Obama On Afghanistan Before Speech and Accuses Obama of Giving “Aid and Comfort” to Terrorist Enemy

dick_cheney.jpgIsn’t it time to really say it? Former Vice President Dick Cheney has morphed into a former Vice President who is violating nearly every protocol of the vast majority of former Presidents and former Vice Presidents in American history by not just actively — and repeatedly and loudly — opposing someone of the opposite party who displaced his administration, but is now polarizing the country in yet another unprecedented way.

The words “aid and comfort” to the enemy mean treason. READ THIS. Even THIS at Von’s Grocery Store on Adams Avenue in San Diego knows it.

You have to search pretty hard to find an example of a former Vice President (or former President) who blasts a sitting President about a policy that hasn’t had time to work yet and has not even been formally ANNOUNCED YET — and of essentially betraying his country by giving aid and comfort to terrorists, being on the opposite site of America’s military, and, overall, a weak and therefore dangerous-to-the-country wimp.

American politics is no longer about merely opposing someone on an issues and debating those issues passionately. It’s now about who is the biggest danger. And then people scratch their heads in amazement about reports that threats to Obama’s life are up 400 percent more than threats to when George W. Bush was President?

The way 21st century politics and media works, Cheney will now get his ink, lots of bandwidth, and broadcast time and those Republicans who are part of the talk radio political culture will applaud him and also go after those who dare to criticize him (Cheney’s critics must also clueless…dangerous.. closet leftists…on the Democratic payroll…don’t understand or care about terrorism or the military and want the terrorists to win and the military to lose). The bottom line is that Cheney’s sub message seems to be:

Don’t even give this guy a chance, folks: he’s a weak, naive, indecisive wimp and doesn’t care about the military or protecting America. Dig in your heels right NOW! Don’t even bother listening to his speech. This guy doesn’t have a clue.

And herein lies the supreme irony: the man who hinted in his speeches while in office that Democrats and/or those who questioned his policies were perhaps (ahem) a…tad less than patriotic or too dense to support policies that truly protected America (his polices) cannot be confused with former Vice President Nixon when JFK was President; Hubert Humphrey when Nixon was President; Walter Mondale when Ronald Reagan was President, Dan Quayle, when Bill Clinton was President; Al Gore when George W. Bush was President.

Or even with GWB himself.

These former Vice Presidents (and Presidents) throughout history — who believed we are all in this together, that our polity works better when former top federal executives try to help those who follow succeed on measures for the common good — were all apparently too wimpish to take a stand (and divide the nation on the eve of a sitting President’s speech) like Cheney.

Cheney has morphed into America’s quintessential talk show political culture former Vice President: constantly on the attack, constantly demonizing, constantly dividing the nation between the good guys who “get it” and the bad and stupid guys (who usually have Ds or Ls in front of their names) who don’t, constantly suggesting via his statements that those who supported him should not to even think about giving a sitting President’s policies a chance before shifting into demonization and attack mode.

He’s constantly offering a call to political, partisan arms — and a call for those on his side to stick their fingers in their ears when the other side speaks.

The issue here is not the strength of Obama’s foreign policy or how efficiently it has been implemented. That could be discussed more seriously if Cheney truly wanted to.

But he has chosen not to.

Read his comments to The Politico and you wonder if they were written by Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.

In a 90-minute interview at his suburban Washington house, Cheney said the president’s “agonizing” about Afghanistan strategy “has consequences for your forces in the field.”

“I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small ‘p’ political reasons, where he’s trying to balance off different competing groups in society,” Cheney said.
QUESTION: Where is is proof that it is small “p” political reasons? It is a partisan political assumption.

“Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they’ve been asked to do?”

TRANSLATION: Obama has taken a long time so the military thinks he’s not behind them. Does this mean Obama is rooting for an American loss? Doesnt’ like the troops? Doesn’t feel the burder of office as he decides whether to sign an order that will result in more American deaths? LBJ felt it during Vietnam; George W. Bush felt it during Iraq. The Vietnam war and Iraq war were not the products of Presidents who didn’t care for the troops or who didn’t support the troops. And when the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam it didn’t mean the White House didn’t care about those who died earlier or who were there at the end.

And then there’s this:

Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. “I basically don’t,” he replied without elaborating.

On Obama’s likely announcement for a troop build up coupled with an exit time frame:

But Cheney said the average Afghan citizen “sees talk about exit strategies and how soon we can get out, instead of talk about how we win.

“Those folks … begin to look for ways to accommodate their enemies,” Cheney said. “They’re worried the United States isn’t going to be there much longer and the bad guys are.”

And he pushes the polarization button:

During the interview, Cheney laced his concerns with a broader critique of Obama’s foreign and national security policy, saying Obama’s nuanced and at times cerebral approach projects “weakness” and that the president is looking “far more radical than I expected.”

“Here’s a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place … and who now travels around the world apologizing,” Cheney said. “I think our adversaries — especially when that’s preceded by a deep bow … — see that as a sign of weakness.”


Specifically, Cheney said the Justice Department decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, in New York City is “great” for Al Qaeda.

And then there’s this quote — unprecedented in America’s political history (If you find a former President or former Vice President who ever said anything about someone who replaced them, kindly send us the link — an actual parallel with to these words and this phrase, please uttered by a former Vice President against a sitting President of the other party):

“One of their top people will be given the opportunity — courtesy of the United States government and the Obama administration — to have a platform from which they can espouse this hateful ideology that they adhere to,” he said. “I think it’s likely to give encouragement — aid and comfort — to the enemy.

Andrew Sullivan sees it as yours truly does:

Accusing the president of giving aid and comfort to the enemy is such a disgusting charge, such a deeply divisive, unAmerican tactic, it would be excoriated if it came from some far right blogger. That it comes from a former vice-president, violating every conceivable protocol (as he did in office), reminds me of why Cheney and Cheneyism remain such a threat to core American and Western values.

If you truly use a position of such authority to show contempt for the sitting president, to accuse him of treason, to attack him on the day he addresses the nation in a critical address, to divide him from the troops, to use sacred issues of war and peace which a president is solemnly engaging as a political weapon or as a vain and self-serving attempt to make your own record look better, then you have no core respect for the institutions and traditions and civility that make a constitutional democracy possible.

Look also at the focus of his attack: the civil trial of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed in New York City. All Cheney can see is the opportunity for such a figure to grandstand, as if KSM’s rantings will have any effect but to demystify him. What Cheney cannot see – because he has no deep appreciation of it – is the beauty of treating a monster like KSM to the stringent calm of Western justice. And what Cheney fears – for he is no fool – is that the trial will also reveal Cheney’s torture regime, how it distorted intelligence, prevented bringing suspects to justice and tarred the US for ever as a country that now does what its enemies used to do: abuse, torture and mistreat prisoners in wartime.

May I use a word I don’t usually use?


For more blog reaction GO HERE.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2009 The Moderate Voice
  • TheMagicalSkyFather

    In 1990 he left Afgh to stew in its own mess as Sec. of Defense. 10 years later when they attacked us on his and Bush’s watch he invaded and then quickly diverted our attention to Iraq that had not one thing to do with the attack on the US. Cheney did not fail once in Afgh, he failed twice over an 18 year period. Unlike Cheney I will avoid maligning him further on this and let that record speak for itself, it speaks volumes.

  • JSpencer

    Looks like they still don’t have Dick’s meds adjusted right.

  • merkin

    His was one of the desks the previous request for more troops sat on for eight months before the change in administrations. I suppose “ignoring” is Chaney‘s preference to “dithering”.

    Cheney is attacking the straw dog about Democratic security failings he built up over the years rather than the actual policy.

  • dduck12

    Cheney is good …………… for Democrats, bad for Republicans. If the more moderate Reps can’t shut him and the moose kisser up, the GOP deserves to lose.

  • At 63 I have disagreed with many if not most politicians but Cheney is the first American politician I considered to be evil. But then I realized he’s not just evil he is literally insane – a psychopath. The real evil here is that he is given a soap box by the media. And as for his evil spawn Liz – ditto.

    • kathykattenburg

      Well, Shannon something — that blogger from Alaska who now writes for The Huffington Post — called Sarah Palin a “sociopath” on Keith Olbermann last night. And there’s been talk of a Cheney/Palin ticket in 2012. Think on that one for a while and scream. 🙂

  • DLS

    “constantly on the attack, constantly demonizing, constantly dividing the nation […] constantly offering a call to political, partisan arms — and a call for those on his side to stick their fingers in their ears when the other side speaks”

    Yes, you folks have been doing this, time after time. All that’s missing here from you is the panting.

  • daveinboca

    What DLS said. …

  • willy1

    How long do pace makers last for?

    • kathykattenburg

      They can be replaced, willy.

  • mlhradio

    I never did agree with the whole “former presidents/vice-presidents/etc should not speak ill of the current administration” argument – as a private citizen, Cheney should have just as much of a right to express his opinion as any other private citizen. One should not attack him because of that point.

    Rather, one should attack him because his opinions are just plain *wrong*. Attack him on the merits (or in this case, the lack of merits) of his argument, not whether or not he can express it.

  • kritt11

    I have no problem with former VP’s or presidents speaking out as long as what they come up with is good for the nation as a whole and not just stated in order to create more divisive partisanship. Obama will never make a right move as far as Cheney’s concerned just because he’s a Democrat. He has been on the attack since day one and refuses to give the new administration a chance to succeed.
    We have no precedent of an attack dog former VP, and I agree with others here who point to Cheney’s dismal record of achievement on Afghanistan while in office.
    His credibility while part of the Bush administration was nonexistent, and we have him to blame for invading and destroying a country that never attacked us.
    If Obama took his time coming up with a policy on Afghanistan, all the better. Cheney prefers the rush to war so that multinational corporations will profit, even if other people’s sons and daughters are killed in the process. His 5 deferments during Vietnam speak for themselves.

  • ProfElwood

    Why is anyone, other than Democrats, listening to this guy anymore?

    • kathykattenburg

      Nobody knows. And Republicans wish he would shut up already more than anyone else.

  • kritt11

    The thing that really stands out is Cheney’s hypocrisy. When he was in office, any criticism of Bush’s war policy or decisions about the War on Terror was akin to treason, or considered appeasement. Remember all of those comparisons to WWII? Bush was cast as Churchill, and protesters of his policies as Chamberlain.

    Now that he is a “bystander” he feels free to protest Obama’s war policy.

  • JSpencer

    Thanks daveinboca and DLS for the Bizzaro comic excerpts. You’ve both got it down cold.

  • spirasol

    The worst of what America is, is represented in this man. The guy’s not just a lousy politician, he’s a creep. Dignified people probably just turn away, block their ears. I must be at least as vile as he for all I want to do is have him rendered here, right now, with the undersized chair in the middle of the room and the bright light over head. When his eyes are blocked it becomes more difficult to defend, it becomes a more inward experience, and it is hard to know from where, what direction the next question, the next convincing hit will come from …………….Dickie, I need to know what transpired in the secret meeting with energy czars? No Dick, no lawyers, no calls, no rights, habeas has been suspended for all enemies domestic and foreign. No Dick, it doesn’t matter that you don’t understand.

  • DLS

    “How long do pace makers last for?”

    Judging by the Cheney-phobes, definitely through 2012 in Cheney’s case. (I’m not so sure, however.)

  • StockBoySF

    So let me get this straight…. Cheney believes he’s fighting the terrorists by pulling troops out of the search for bin-Laden and he claims Obama is aiding and abetting the enemy by actually sending in more troops to fight the terrorists. Does not make sense unless Cheney believes that America is the enemy.

  • tDent

    Is it just me, or is Cheney saying that we should take one of the basis of the establishment of our country and throw it out the window? Article 3, Section 2, of the United States Constitution requires that all criminal trials be heard by a jury. It also specifies that the trial will be heard in the state the crime was committed. Yes, I realize what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has done, and yes I believe that he deserves to be punished, but it is not my, Cheney’s, your, or anyone’s decision to ignore the United States Constitution.

    Cheney stated, about the trail of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
    “One of their top people will be given the opportunity, courtesy of the United States government and the Obama administration, to have a platform from which they can espouse this hateful ideology that they adhere to.”
    “I think it’s likely to give encouragement, aid and comfort to the enemy.”

    Cheney used the phrase “Aid and comfort” which is taken directly from Article 3, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution in the description of a treason to the United States. Is he implying that the current administration is committing treason? I have never heard a precedent in which obeying the United States Constitution is an act of Treason. In fact by ignoring the U.S. Constitution Article 3, Section 2, in this manner sets a precedent in which any person can be denied a Trial by Jury. If that is the case we might as well throw away the entire Constitution, one of the very documents that makes our country great. If you ignore even one portion of the constitution then you demean the entire document. If you can ignore one basic right, then you can ignore them all. If you believe that because he is not a citizen of the United States, read the Constitution. Other than holding Presidential Office there is not one mention that any right given to us by the Constitution is limited to those who are citizens. In fact the last lines of Article 3, Section 2 state that everyone is given the right to trial no matter who they are.

  • tDent

    Sorry, it is needed to hold any office, not just presidential office. Still dose not apply to trials for non-citizens.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :