Dick Cheney Keeps the Flame Aloft
Former vice president Dick Cheney appeared at the Center for Security Policy last night, an organization headed by the neocon and former Reagan Defense official Frank Gaffney, to receive the Keeper of the Flame award. And keep the flame aloft he did. Cheney lashed into Obama for allegedly dithering when it comes to protecting American security in Afghanistan, selling out Eastern Europe on missile defense, and betraying intelligence officers.
With his usual penchant for understatement, Cheney concluded:
There are policy differences, and then there are affronts that have to be answered every time without equivocation, and this is one of them. We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys. We cannot hope to win a war by talking down our country and those who do its hardest work - the men and women of our military and intelligence services. They are, after all, the true keepers of the flame.
It might be tempting to dismiss Cheney's remarks as so much conservative boilerplate. But that would be a mistake.
For one thing, Cheney's speeches drubbing Obama contain a fairly coherent critique. Sure, the cheap shots are always present--to say that Obama is "turning the guns on our guys" is a shocking statement, one that, in effect, equates Obama with terrorists. It's further proof that Cheney will stop at nothing to smear and tarnish his political opponents.
But even as he throws globs of mud at Obama, Cheney has, it must be said, done a fairly effective job of reversing reality--presenting the Bush administration as successfully protecting America, at home and abroad. Instead of Obama rectifying the egregious failures of his predecessors, Cheney suggests that he's undoing the very essential steps that he and Bush took to safeguard the homeland. Once more, the spineless liberals who cut and run during Vietnam are abandoning the fight.
It's mythology, but should Obama come to grief in Afghanistan, then it could become a potent myth. The argument on the right that's being prepared is that a feckless Obama lacked the gumption to carry the fight to the terrorists. Where Bush had them on the run, Obama is allowing them to regroup. The Center for Security Policy's mission statement offers a succinct statement of the credo that animated the Bush administration and that continues to serve as the lodestar for the right: "We as a nation must also work to undermine the ideological foundations of totalitarianism and Islamist extremism with at least as much skill, discipline and tenacity as President Reagan employed against Communism to prevail in the Cold War." Of course, this overlooks the fact that Reagan jettisoned his hardline policies in his second term and signed arms-control agreements with Mikhail Gorbachev--something that Gaffney, who resigned from the Defense Department in protest and is an astute intellectual, does not mention on the center's website.
To a surprising degree, the GOP has formed a new coalition of the willing to attack Obama as weak on foreign policy. No matter what he does, he's assailed as not doing enough and acting as a new Neville Chamberlain. Has Obama already sent more troops to Afghanistan? Then he needs to send even more. Might he strike a deal with Iran on its nuclear weapons program? It's simply a ruse and a snare. The right will not agree with any agreement that Obama might reach with any of America's adversaries.
The torch that Cheney is carrying for the right isn't burning all that brightly yet. If Obama is successful, it will flicker out into oblivion. But if he isn't, Cheney will have laid the groundwork for a resurgence of some of the most retrograde policies this country has ever seen.
Robert Naiman: "Lessons in Disaster": If Obama Caves to the Pentagon, He's No Jack Kennedy
You don't have to be a dove to understand what President Kennedy understood: putting U.S. troops on the ground somewhere doesn't automatically make you more powerful.
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
Why is it that we are still paying attention to the neo con king after the Iraq war?
War is all about dithering, otherwise this would all be over.
...technically, dithering is a good thing: see wiki.
Very fine analysis of the chess game being played by the far right. However i can only reiterate what good ol' Joe Biden said, "So what". The Repugnant party is in a shambles and spiralling further out of control by the day and are increasingly being seen as obstructionists. Cheneys rewriting of history for the benefit of his legacy is seen by the majority as transparent at best.
You didn't keep us safe Dick. 9/11 occurred while you were in office.
You just didn't. Quit saying you did.
I fully agree that should Obama fail, look out for policies that one might refer to politely as "retrograde".
I saw that flame being held aloft in a photo of a protest in Canada just today.
Cheney is pathetic.Him & Bush are chicken hawks-should have no credibility on war issues. Where were they when it was their time to go??Hiding behind their deferements & families deep pockets!!
If past news stories can be believed, Chaney was the one pushing
President Bush to back Israel to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. The
conflict in Afghanastan has been going on for a very long time, and
Chaney apparently didn't pressure President Bush for the end to it.
War makes good sense when the economy is tanking, take WWll for
instance, coming after the Depression. And its good for military contractors.
Every time Cheney opens his mouth about terrorism and "keeping us safe," we should recite this phrase:
"Under Cheney, America suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history." Rinse, Repeat. Don't ever let it go unsaid.
also remember the fact that they did nothing after getting intelligence reports that an attack was being planned. they then invaded the wrong place and did NOTHING about or to the people responsible for the attack.
I want some company to make that hideous "keeper of the flame" trophy they gave Dick. It would make a lovely holiday gift. And also it would be nice to make a baton with "flames" on each end since this is what
Lynn Cheney twirled. What a pair of bookends.
Disagree with Heilbrunn on this, altho I enjoy his book. For starters, Bush/Cheney placed all their marbles on Iraq. Resources went to Iraq, at expense of Afghanistan or anywhere else.
Assume the worse. Assume an Al Qaida terrorist attack occurs on U.S. soil, or against U.S. interests somewhere in the world. Unless the attack was plotted in Iraq(which had no Al Qaida presence prior to American invasion and which would be an unlikely source for any Al Qaida sponsored attack), the Bush administration, including Cheney, do not have a leg to stand on.
They placed all their emphasis on Iraq, which never was the problem in the first place.
Obama could easily pivot, in the event of any Al Qaida-sponsored attack on the U.S., and make the credible claim that the prior administration had placed so much emphasis on Iraq(an extraneous concern), while simultaneously neglecting the growing menace which resulted in another Al Qaida attack.
I think the American people understand Iraq never had anything to do with Al Qaida.
As such, the fact the prior administration invested so substantially on a nation(Iraq)that never posed any serious terrorist threat to the U.S. will undermine any criticism they may try to level against Obama in the event Al Qaida does strke again.
How many American oil companies got contracts
with the Iraqi government for drilling? We supported
Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war. Then he became
a problem.
"But even as he throws globs of mud at Obama, Cheney has, it must be said, done a fairly effective job of reversing reality..."
Huh? He and his boss left office in disgrace, even pitied by many neocons. He may be running at the mouth a lot more than he was allowed to while in office, but there's a difference between making a lot of noise and making a lot of sense.
One thing conservatives can do, and it is not win wars or steward the economy, is to create alternative realities. Cheney and Bush, who let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora and took resources of men and material away from Afghanistan to put in Iraq, are now painted as having the terrorists on the run. Forget that there were only 21,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan when Obama entered office. As I said, conservatives can not govern, but excel at creating false narratives and revisionist history. They are Orwellian by nature. By the way, this article describes Frank Gafney as an "astute intellectual.' I have never heard him say anything that makes sense, besides his own version of revisionist history. Wasn't he on Chris Matthews yesterday arguing we would have won the Vietnam War if we just would have just stayed a little longer. These conservatives are all still fighting the war in Vietnam.
The conservatives are stll fighting the Civil War.
Interesting use of the arms control agreement President Reagan signed with Mikhail Gorbechov, as if signing any agreement with Russia can be trusted -- oh, and what was Reagan's slogan? Trust ,but verify. Like we're supposed to trust Iran like we "trusted" North Korea. Nonsense. Nations led by dictators can never be trusted a micro second and free nations must always be prepared to deal with them. Sure, talk with them but never leave your guard down. Maybe that comment seems superfluous but look back on the history of Europe as just one example. After coming out of the Dark Ages the continent had countries waging incessant wars on each other for centuries, as they have at the present -- Russia invading portions of Georgia. Fairly recently there was Bosnia, in the mid East Afghans/Arabs/Palestinians/Israelis/Pakistanis, going at each other now, some for centuries.
President Obama is a far decent man with a dream for a better America. But his clumsy support staff and woeful lack of experience in power politics, any top level management, or military affairs (particularly battle), has this country in visible danger. And we're supposed to worry about former Vice President Cheney's kicking President Obama's butt to get him moving on something as crucial as Afghanistan? Sheesh.
Obama is blasted for not doing enough in 10 months
Cheney had 6 years (thats 72 months) and did not manage to do squat.
Yeah Obama is the dithering one...
Gosh, how enlightening.
It's all about the competing myths; the right, with spokespeople like Cheney and through the propaganda outlet known as Fox, will NEVER do anything but tear down Obama (and the left--or anyone who is not themselves), from now until eternity. They will NEVER admit that Obama (or anyone not themselves) did or can do anything good or right. They will manufacture glorious fantasies of their own success and the dismal failures and evil intentions of (anyone not themselves).
That's the sure thing from now on. We will be flooded with patently false myths of their own tough-guy greatness and everyone else's weak, dithering duplicities. They will not be lectured, corrected or shamed into admitting their lies, hypocrisies or crimes.
That's due to a defect that will not be corrected by our lecturing, correcting or shaming: they have no conscience and no respect for truth. Period. They will shamelessly say and do anything it takes to destroy their enemies and gain and hold power and wealth for themselves.
It's a tribal kind of thing in the end. They don't hold the values of respect for truth, freedom of the individual, and reverence for life, the Earth and, for some of us, the mystery of Being. They are arrested in development in an adolescent stage of narrow paranoia and myopic selfishness which extends only to their family and tribe.
Unfortunately, they are normal and typical of humans and we will have to deal with them forever.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
