Dick Cheney: Barack Obama 'trying to pretend'

By MIKE ALLEN | 12/30/09 4:21 AM EST
www.politico.com...

Former Vice President Dick Cheney accused President Barack Obama on Tuesday of “trying to pretend we are not at war” with terrorists, pointing to the White House response to the attempted sky bombing as reflecting a pattern that includes banishing the term “war on terror” and attempting to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center.


“[W]e are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe,” Cheney said in a statement to POLITICO. “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.”

I agree with this part to an extent. Obama did come out sounding just like Bush about OBL and going to Yemen. He just took his sweet time about it. I have seen good arguments on both sides that he didn't have to make an immediate response, but in this case, I think he should have, because the world is a stage and the US is standing front and center. This should have been all about image.

Now, one has to reflect back on Joe Biden, and his warning that Obama would be tested. Ding, Ding.

(snip)

Rep. Peter King of New York, ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee and a member of the Intelligence committee, said Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show: “I think that the administration has made a mistake by treating this terrorist as a common criminal, by putting him into the criminal-justice system. I wish they had put him into a military tribunal so we could get as much intelligence and information out of him as we could.”

So what do you think? Why would we put this man in a military tribunal, as this was not in a foriegn land during anything military? This was from foreign soil, sure, but on a domestic flight. It did make sense to me, when we captured people during military operations, but they can just as easily have someone interrogate this man in a jail or prison.

They are worried they won't get to waterboard him, but we all know the questioning techniques in jails are sometimes just as questionable. Who are they trying to fool?

Certainly, handling this in a military tribunal would be good for Obama, as he displays some need to distance himself from any condemning of Muslims. The jury is still out on this one, until we see what happens with the Fort Hood shooter, and if Obama has to sign his death warrant.

Although Cheney and other Republicans have accused Obama of a muted response to the attack, President George W. Bush was quieter for much longer about the attack by shoe bomber Richard Reid in December 2001.


Obama went before cameras on Monday, the third day after the fizzled bomb attempt.


It was six days after the attack when Bush finally discussed the incident, saying as part of a response to a question at his ranch in Crawford, Texas: “[W]e’ve got to be aware that there are still enemies to the country. And our government is responding accordingly.”

Here again, they make a good point about the shoe bomber attack, and in drawing paralells between the two stories. The one thing I see that is glaringly obvious though, is that Bush had already come out swinging about 9/11. The world knew were not squishy about it.

So, I take the stand that Obama has been an apologist for America to the world, and set the stage for this, painting America as soft on terror now. In reality, I don't think the two are parelells, at all.

Politico is making the same mistake Obama is making in attempting to use "failed Bush policies" as his own on the war front. You cannot take two similar issues and handle them the same. The precluding events are not similar, and therefore the concluding events cannot be likened.

Also, Democratic officials maintain that Obama is, in fact, comfortable with the notion that the U.S. is at war with terrorists. Near the start of his inaugural address, he said: “Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.”


And John O. Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, declared in an August speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “[A]s the president has made clear, we are at war with al-Qaida, which attacked us on Sept. 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.”


The senior Democrat said: “There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference from the last administration is that we are at war with that which is tangible -- al-Qaida, violent extremists, and terrorists -- rather than at war with a tactic, ‘terrorism.’”

Ok, lets be honest here. What we had was a war on terror and like it or not, Islamist extremism. Al Qaeda is as tangible as Islamist extremists, because as we have been made aware by the Taliban, extremism is on many fronts, while it seems they wish us to think Al Qaeda is in Yemen.

More of the PC crap, IMO, afraid to use words like Muslim extremism, Islamic terrorists, and pretending this is not a part of the issue.

They can pretend all they want, but until they take the steps to understand and be *open* about what is really going on, this is only going to continue, and to get worse.

reply to post by Libertygal
I think it is INTENDED to get worse!

I do not believe Barack Obama has the necessary motivation to take ANY substantive actions. He wants the US to have more internal police power. The more threatened and victimized we become, the greater his ability to impose more domestic control.

What better way to impose the ultimate "nanny state" than to assert, "This is for your own good," and back it up with proof of the threats and danger that only Washington can address?

"Swine flu," "global warming." "housing crisis," and "economic collapse," haven't worked so far. Take it one step farther. Our health, environment, finances and homes weren't enough. Now, people must die.

Recall that he, Clinton, Emmanuel and others in the administration chant the same mantra:

Rahm Emmanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
Hillary Clinton: “Never waste a good crisis.”
Obama: “Time of crisis can be 'great opportunity'”
Obama Social Agenda Moving Forward by Crisis

I really believe that Obama has absolutely NO motivation to take any concrete FOREIGN action in these regards. The worse things get, the better for his agenda.

His administration needs help. He needs this.

jw

reply to post by Libertygal


Of course Cheney wants WAR Declared , He commited mass

murder of his own citizens, Treasonous acts against the US.

He doesn't want BO to screw up his lifes work.

Click here for more information.

I feel this statement says a lot about Dick. According to The Constitution of the United States, Only congress can declare war, and they haven’t done that in a very long time. Dick is a dick.

reply to post by jdub297


Again, I agree with your assessment of the situation.

There is one thing, though, that I wonder if it has been take into consideration and it is this.

Was the Fort Hood shooter a "rogue" so to speak? And was this Christmas attack? What I mean by rogue is, I believe Al Qaeda is well formed and well financed, and capable of carrying out attacks like 9/11.

However, I think what we are seeing is the ones going off the deep end, acting alone, and perpetrating their own crimes, much to the chagrin of the Adminsitration.

If this is the case, it still plays into the hands of the Administration, and accomplishes their goal, but I think the unexpected consequence is that means it has come to our home soil, and the attempts to keep it cleanly overseas are failing.

It is always better if it happens to "someone else", then it can be pointed at and stated, "See, this is what will happen if we don't..." and they take more rights. It loses something when it is at home though.

It is no longer neatly and cleanly at someone elses house, and I have the feeling this was unaccounted for. We still stand to lose the same rights, or even more, but the side effect is that people no longer feel protected. This is a double edged sword for this administration, and has him in a quandry as far as his appearing soft on terror.

I could be mistaken, and this could all be a part of the agenda, but I do have to wonder if it was an intended outcome, or a surprise one.

reply to post by Libertygal
I do not see any short-term repercussions for a "soft on terror" perception. He has 3 years left, absent impeachment, to orchestrate and manipulate.

What I see is the willingness of the general public to accept greater federal domestic intervention into our lives under the guise of "National Security."

Where better to start in the defense of foreign threats than here, at home?

The greater the perceived threat, the greater the public's willingness to submit to federal supervision over aspects of our lives that would otherwise be exempt or off-limits.

This is going to be very bad.

jw

Nothing like the mention of Dick Cheney to get the hateful left riled up.

Why is the left so full of hate?

Sure I don't like Obama, but I don't hate him. Sure I make fun of him, belittle him, rejoice in his massive failings, and question his intelligence, and socialist leanings, but I don't wish harm on him.

On the other hand, lefties have this massive hate for Dick Cheney, that plainly is just not healthy, and it just pretty sad. I actually feel sorry for you people.

BTW Cheney is 100% correct in his assessment. Obama will go out of his way to crucify a white cop, but bends over backwards not to say anything bad about Muslim terrorists.

reply to post by Carseller4


The hate is definitely rampant, and sad. It is on both sides, too, not just the left, but the right as well. But, Dick Cheney does seem to really be a sore spot, more than I was aware of, guaging by the responses to the OP.

In his speech, he referred to the terrosists as "those". I read a good article about it a little while ago, and had it not been pointed out, I wouldn't have even noticed it. Never once did he lay down the fact the bomber was a muslim, which, regardless of what people wish to claim, it is important.

Just as it was with the Fort Hood shooter. Just as it will be with future attacks. The PC has gotten us deeper into this mess, and we need to find a solution to get out of it, but PC has definitely been a thorn in the side of the US on this.

reply to post by jdub297


Again, very good replies. The short and long term problems I see is more attacks on our soil. I can see how this fits into the agenda that you speak of, but do you really think Obama is willing to sacrifice lives here at home for said agenda?

I do agree he is manipulative, as I stated in another reply, but I cannot seem to wrap my head around him being willing to let people die in America for furthering his agenda.

These extremists like to target innocent people, which includes children. We have infrastructure to protect, such as dams and nuclear power plants, but they get their biggest reactions when the go after the innocents.

You may be right, but that's a hard pill to swallow.

reply to post by Libertygal
If you've read his books, one of the tactics he ultimately recognized, accepted and endorsed as an "organizer" in Chicago was the use of violence.

When you are committed to your socialist agenda, dead bodies are only "keeping score."

We are already past that point, though.

Have you read his May, 2009 NYT Magazine interview? He says straight out that if he hadn't been able to personally afford his grandmother's treatment, that he would understand her being denied treatment because she was at an "end of life" point.

If you consider the commitment of 30,000 new troops into an Afghan debacle he doesn't want to "win," (he's already said he'd rather concede some control to the Taliban), then you see that lives lost don't mean much at all.

jw

Fixed by the mods..........

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Carseller4]

reply to post by Libertygal


So basically you are backing up every republican talking point and even though it is pointed out that there is a double standard, Obama is wrong?



Liz, is that really you?

Why is it when maybe someone has developed and thought out their own post that may align with 'talking' points, they become not yours anymore, but rather you have become a mouthpiece?

PC and multiculturalism create a lot of problems in this country, as it does in any country. Although we are all individuals, the majority of us belong to some type of group and could be classified into a group (for lack of better terminology).

By the president not directly naming the enemy (which was a great outcry from the left in regards to President Bush), how does this effect us, the people?

From what I gather, people on all sides of the spectrum understand that Islamic Extremist are the ones perpetuating the cause against America and the West.

They are taking fundamental values of a religion and using it to create a hateful branch of that religion to further their political goals of terrorism.

Just one look at the countries they operate in can show you that they seek out poor, run-down and chaotic nations that they can control through fear and operate openly.

It would be nice if President Obama would carry a big-stick and speak softly, but instead he is holding an olive branch and speaking sternly.

Fear to institute further controls. I believe Cheney should keep his trap shut, it only gets the left riled up and helps the agenda of more control.

Wow, just a thought, two sides of the same coin.

A paradigm, for more control. Not a new thought, just an old one.

Where was the "supposed" security conditions? Allowing someone on board without a passport? What is up with that?

They were probably to busy strip searching some grandmother from Norway!

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Why is it when maybe someone has developed and thought out their own post that may align with 'talking' points, they become not yours anymore, but rather you have become a mouthpiece?

That's when a person's thoughts were developed while listening to the same repeated talking points and when hearing it again, they think they agree with it. Thats how propaganda works.

The egg comes before the chicken.

CallMeCrazy

So using your logic then, no one has their own voice and essentially we are all using talking points that derived from somewhere else? Also by applying your logic, the tables could be turned and say that you are just repeating the talking points of people that have said nearly the same thing. Thus you too are now perpetuating the Obama administration talking points (or far-left talking points....I really don't know and to be honest just making a comparison) of dismantle and discrediting posters via veiled ad hominem attacks that are of a lesser degree as to not be actually seen as such.

I believe most people here are intelligent enough to discern information, from multiple sources and cognitively create their own thoughts and understanding upon an issue or article.

From what I gather, the OP took the time to break down the news piece and apply their logic and understanding upon it. Usually this requires some sort of critical thinking. Just because you draw upon previous sources for your critical thinking doesn't mean you are towing the talking points. That is what critical thinking entails. Rather than just posting the news story and the source, the OP took the time to establish their thoughts, views and opinions on the matter. They took the time to critically think about what the story was and dive deeper than what normally is presented here on this site.

I am not sticking up for any one person, I am just merely pointing out that far too often, if someone 'breaks' rank, they must be labeled in some way, rather than seen as someone who has used their brains and actually put some thought into a thread.



[edit on 30-12-2009 by ownbestenemy]

Originally posted by Carseller4
Nothing like the mention of Dick Cheney to get the hateful left riled up.

Why is the left so full of hate?

Sure I don't like Obama, but I don't hate him. Sure I make fun of him, belittle him, rejoice in his massive failings, and question his intelligence, and socialist leanings, but I don't wish harm on him.

On the other hand, lefties have this massive hate for Dick Cheney, that plainly is just not healthy, and it just pretty sad. I actually feel sorry for you people.

BTW Cheney is 100% correct in his assessment. Obama will go out of his way to crucify a white cop, but bends over backwards not to say anything bad about Muslim terrorists.

Why so divisive, both sides are feeled with hate equally against said politicians, especially Dick Cheney who I would say isn't just hated by the left but the right to, since he was the one pulling George Bush's strings.

Dick should keep his mouth shut and go do some dove hunting, he has absolutely no place to run his mouth after what he helped perpetrate after the last 8 years, he thinks of himself as the messiah compared to Obama, yet they are one in the same.

stfu dick.

reply to post by Uniceft17


Why should Mr. Cheney's voice be stifled? Just because you do not like what he is saying or because who he is? Imaging how quiet this world would be if we applied this sort of logic to everyone...

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Isn't that how it always is? Silence the critics and only listen to those opinions that matter? Critical thinking seems to be a rare trait. Emotional thought, no matter how irrational has taken over on both sides of the political spectrum.