Cheney's War Against Obama
It was almost like an episode from Bloggingheads.tv. On the one side was President Obama speaking on national security in a measured and statesmanlike way. On the other side was former vice-president Dick Cheney trying to speak on national security in a measured and statesmanlike way.
It wasn't even close. Obama deftly wove his own personal saga and faith in American values with its future. His indictment of the Bush administration wasn't something that Obama wanted to deliver--as he made it clear, he wants to move on. Cheney's campaign to hail his own record forced Obama to recount, once more, why it was that the Bush administration besmirched America's Constitution, why "enhanced interrogation" didn't enhance American security but directly jeopardized it.
Once again, Cheney, by contrast, offered a deceptively consoling vision of an America that can't lose its moral bearings because any measures that are deemed necessary to protect it are, by definition, just and righteous. Why is anyone even listening to him? The failure of the Bush administration's foreign policy has been patently obvious--a morass in Iraq, a resurgent insurgency in Afghanistan and Pakistan--note that Obama did not include Iraq as part of the struggle against terrorism--and the collapse of American standing around the globe.
But since even Democratic Senators seem to be cowering before the idea of shuttering Guantanamo, it's worth briefly examining Cheney's modus operandi once again. In his speech at the American Enterprise Institute, which the Weekly Standard first posted, Cheney deployed a number of familiar tactics.
First, he revived the bogus claim that Saddam Hussein was working hand-in-glove with al-Qaeda: "We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists."
Second, he depicted the Democrats as woefully out of touch with reality, trapped in a law enforcement approach when it comes to national security: "You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event - coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come."
But as Obama pointed out, the Bush administration didn't really have a strategy, but an ad hoc policy towards prosecuting terrorists. Furthermore, Obama has not, and did not, say that 9/11 was an isolated event. In fact, he courageously noted that he cannot promise that another attack will never take place. But he also made it clear that stopping terrorism is his number one priority. Does that sound like someone who is asleep at the switch? Like a president, who, when listening to a CIA briefer warning about a looming al-Qaeda attack, says, "All right. You've covered your ass now."
Third, Cheney claimed, "Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda." But what operatives and persons inside the United States did this program ever expose?
Fourth, Cheney made it sound as though the Bush administration never embraced torture. The problem was confined to a few low-level, rogue guards: "At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men."
Fifth, Cheney ridiculed the notion that the Bush administration's tactics boomeranged: "This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It's another version of that same old refrain from the Left, "We brought it on ourselves."
The reference to the "left" is revealing. Cheney began his speech by presenting himself as a simple, plainspoken fellow who had no office left to seek, no grudges to settle. But by the end, his mask slipped and the culture warrior appeared. His war isn't against terrorism. It's against Obama.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Dick Cheney is trying to protect his legacy." writes someone in this thread. Will he, or anyone at all, please tell me ONE THING that Cheney did in his tenure as VP that was any good? So what "legacy" is he trying to protect?
Feel free to criticize Dick Cheney, and, certainly, point out anything erroneous in his remarks, but translating the statement, "dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists," into "(reviving) the bogus claim that Saddam Hussein was working hand-in-glove with al-Qaeda" is simply twisting language beyond its breaking point. The 9/11 Report even acknowledges that Saddam had ties to terrorists. I hear those on the Left accuse Bush and Cheney of lying on this matter and making public statements connecting Hussein to the 9/11 attack, but I have never been able to find any record of either man making such a statement. The Joint Resolution that authorized action against Iraq cites quite a number of reasons why action should be taken, but those reasons do not include any connection between Saddam and the 9/11 attack. I invite anyone to cite a specific, documented speech, address, or comment by either Bush or Cheney that attempted to link Saddam to the 9/11 attack. I acknowledge that my research may be insufficient, so please provide me the documentation.
Is this comment attempting to get the lying and treasonous Cheny off the hook? His cherry pickng of
CIA files and his serial lies linking of Saddam with WMD's was quite enough, apparently, to get us into an unneeded and illeagl war.
When I look at Mr.Cheney it gives me chills, that is not a good feeling. I believe that they lied about Iraq on everything and we lost over 4 thousand young people for covering up this crime. Our ex Pres and Vice. and SOS. didnt not make US safe, but more then ever much more unsafe. Before invasion of Iraq , we could travel everywere with few problems here and there, but now we dont dare do this anymore , we - tourists find Our selfs very dengerous situation , even when we are just as tourists, paeaceful and friendy americans who just want to travel and have noothing to with politics, dont agree with ex bosses. We become victims of OUR politicians dirty politics, especjally in last 8 years. Why any TV or radio station give so much time to those who dont deserve any .We Americans should live fantastic in this best country in the world, but becaose of few , we are paying a huge price for. Someone must be hold accountabe, and I hope that Mr. Obama truly is paying attention to OUR needs, to US, not to those who put US in this a such ugly situation in first place!!!
Here we have a man angry with the way his boss (Nixon) was treated. Once in power he attempts to reshape the constitution to create the new Imperial Presidency. In spite of the tragedy of 9/11 the man pushes to resolve 'unfinished business" in Iraq while his president is declaring "war" on terrorism. Of course we all know that terrorism is a monolithic entity with a singular purpose for existence (sarcasm intended). In the mean time his KBR buddies are making billions off no bid contracts but Iraq will pay for itself with oil revenues,right?.Now to make us safe from a threat which represents far less risk that the possibility of global annhilation by nuclear weapons(during the cold war) he decided that we should undermine the very principles on which this nation was founded because it would make us safe. Now that he's out of power he wants to pat himself on the back for keeping us safe. Yet the very goals of the terrorists we're to fear is to undermine our civil liberties and have us engage in and economic war where they spend a few million to threaten us and we spend billions if not trillions to protect ourselves. Cheney can be very proud of the nation he reshaped. Once we were free and courageous people and now we find ourselves a frightened nation willing to give up liberty for the sake of security.
dfranz, Cheney is writing a book and he is asking for 2Million$. He just won't go quietly into the night. I feel he knows he will get people to buy his book of LIES!!!
The net result of this media mantra of the day is to make Obama look different than Cheney. Actually, Obama is pursuing almost all the controversial policies of Cheney.
Good Cop, Bad Cop continues as usual. One media one vote. Kuchinich will never be allowed to make a real difference. After all, Obama is different than Cheney.
Exactly .Cheney is to make us relieved Obama is in power, not him, but if you really look at what they are offering the difference is only in tone.
Author Jacob Heilbrunn states in the article, "It wasn't even close. Obama deftly wove his own personal saga and faith in American values with its future. His indictment of the Bush administration wasn't something that Obama wanted to deliver--as he made it clear, he wants to move on."
Mr. Heilbrunn, people who really want to move on, move on.
Obama says he wants to move on. Jacob Heilbrunn says Obama wants to move on. Then why did Obama either attack or downgrade the previous administration no less than 28 times during his speech? Move on? I think not. Obama is covering his tracks.
It's done with mirrors. Watch the left hand, not the right hand. No, now watch the right hand, not the left hand. Indict Cheney and Bush, while Obama spends our country into oblivion and the credit worthiness of this once great country goes to hell.
Why is this goblin, this Cheney, still hovering around cyberspace and media?
Why would anyone give a hoot what Cheney said ? He is out of our government,thank goodness, just like most of the Republicans that spent 10 plus years raping our country . Ignore them.
I'm so angry with the mainstream media.
Why the hell is the mainstream media giving Dick Cheney credibility? Why are his words and opinions elevated to the same level as the elected president of the United States?
My local paper has articles with titles like "Spin Meter: Obama vs. Cheney" and has the text of Cheney's speeches. It gives the impression that the president is answerable to Cheney. The reality is that Cheney is not a currently active world leader or statesman. To my knowledge, he hadn't been elected to any public office since the 1990s.
As far as I'm concerned, Dick Cheney has about as much credibility as any blogger on the site or any retired former government official. He shouldn't be treated as if he's President Obama's boss or something.
Take away his platform, maybe Cheney will go back underground or to his man sized safe or something.
Dick Cheney is trying to protect his legacy. That's all. He knows the media loves a conflict story (if it bleeds, it leads). The repubs know how to give the media what they want - fearmongering, lies, half-truths, propoganda. Only McClatchy News have challenged Cheney's lies he told yesterday.
See K.J. Dwyer's Profile
The image of a former Vice President of the United States advocating torture is without a doubt one of the the lowest points in American History.
The mere fact that there is a "debate" over the efficacy of torture illustrates -- in start relief -- just how far we have descended as a culture and as a nation.
After 100+ years of subverting democracies all over the world, this is what we've come to.
Anyone who can't or won't connect the dots is either ignorant or malevolent and given the reticence to investigate and prosecute this latest band of war criminals, they will no doubt enjoy the faux statesmanship afforded previous bad actors. They'll have airports named after them (Dulles), be invited to speak at commencement ceremonies of major universities and to be interviewed in the cosy confines of the Charlie Rose show (Kissinger) or make nearly successful runs for US Senate seats (North).
It is to vomit and while the vast majority of Americans remain embarrassingly ignorant of their country's crimes over more than a century now, the world does not. As our stature in the world inevitably declines (do the math), so will the tolerance of the wanton, irresponsible, hegemenous narrow interests who instigate and prosecute these crimes.
There needs to be a Nuremburg type tribunal to suss all of this out. These crimes and criminals need to be prosecuted and sentenced. Period. Anything less will only facilitate the next great American atrocity.
I like the last part of your opinion, but the whole thing is great!!!
That's kind of harsh. I think that all matters need to be looked at in the context of thier day. To be sure we've behaved poorly by suporting the likes of Pinochet, the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein. Over all though we have been a force for positive change in the world through the last 100 years. I'm sure parts of Europe, China, Japan and South Korea were probably pretty pleased with our involvement and intervention through the past century even if it meant we at times were involved in violent conflicts with them.
The past 8 have of course been an unmitigated disaster and while I would love to hold the parties responsible for thier actions what will the consequences be? Political stalemate. Unless you can completely render the GOP useless you have to deal with thier representatives as well. We need pragmatic solutions to the problems we inherited.
My preference would be to reexamine the convictions of subordinates at Abu Ghurab carrying out the Secdef's orders and have them at least be offered clemency if thier superiors have not been held to the same legal standard.
I
Cheney's reappearance is about energy and oil. pure and simple. He wants to keep doing what he's always done so he'll get what he always gets--more access to gas & oil reserves for his industry cronies, wherever it is and wherever they are.
Welcome to Cheney's War against Reality and Truth!
I agree with most of your argument, and thought I'd rot in hell before borrowing from Dick Cheney to make a point, but I do believe we need to maintain more uniformity in our policy on terrorism, including reshaping the Gitmo mess, vs. the kind of political nowhere-waters Obama's navigating to on a his ship of pragmatism.
Did you LISTEN to Obama's speech? That is EXACTLY what he is proposing.
I don't have the exact quotes but he made it clear that establishing a legal framework for dealing with the category of detainees "that cannot be prosecuted but are nonetheless still too dangerous to release" that NO LONGER relies on just the president's say so, but must be agreed to, case-by-case, by the judiciary and congress in a reassertion of classic American "checks and balances".
Where there IS cause for concern is his proposals for "Prolonged Detention". What this means is not clear but it seems to mean that anybody can be detained without trial or rights for as long as the president determines "we are at war".
My native UK, which is just as concerned about freedom and security as the USA I can tell you, had a big problem when then Prime Minister Blair wanted to increase the detention without indictment time specifically for IRA suspects to 3 months. He got 28 days. The 3 months is laughable compared to the indefinite detention being proposed by, now, two American presidents.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
