Dick Cheney Is Good for America
Oomph. The Obama administration just rabbit-punched the Republicans: "It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics," said CIA director Leon Panetta in the New Yorker, about Dick Cheney and his obsession with the terror threat.
They're clever, the Obama boys. What they're doing is the thing that the Democrats have always failed at, manipulating the argument so as to blame the Republicans for the scary things that might happen. The Democrats, being verbally flat-footed and painfully literal, have never been able to make the complicated and post-modern point that the terror threat was in the Republicans' interest--that the Republicans gained if we bled.
Well, the Democrats have pretty much gotten it: The Panetta point is that Cheney's not just a fearmonger, but something like a short-seller. He benefits if Americans are killed--or certainly benefits from that prospect. But in this new rhetorical jujitsu, the Democrats are suddenly on the side of security--indeed, they lose if there is a breach of it--and the Republicans are on the side of some macabre wistfulness for Armageddon.
Continue reading on newser.com
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
Cheney’s super secret energy task force surveyed potential suitors/developers for the oil assets in Iraq MONTHS before September 11th provided ANY rationale for that strategic consideration.
http://www
http://www
http://www
Judicial Watch has been seeking these documents under FOIA since April 19, 2001. Judicial Watch was forced to file a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy, et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) when the government failed to comply with the provisions of the FOIA law. U.S. District Court Judge Paul J. Friedman ordered the government to produce the documents on March 5, 2002.
Cheney was already aware of Bush's statements detailing his intentions for an "easy" war with Iraq to secure his presidential legacy. Cheney saddled Halliburton with a huge debt load for the asbsetos lawsuits with the acquisition of Dresser industries Cheneyramrodded. Cheney undoubtedly saw the vice-presidency as his ticket into the oilfields, a free-flowing payback revenue stream to Halliburton. Now the darkest of conspiracy theories can be seeded with a measure of credibility by lining motive, means and opportunity for the failure of every single defense system designed to protect us directly to the door of the vice president's office. One of the big post Iraq war oil field winners; Chinese oil developers. Who’s side is this man on!?!?
Cheney is using the tried and worn out strawman argument. The false premise is we are safe b/c of Gitmo, torture, spying and invading Iraq. Therefore the false conclusion that follows is since Obama has spoken out against all of these and has reversed policy or at least started to, that has made us less safe. Attempts by Dems and others to discredit the strawman in this argument has been less than mildly successful with the general population. The Panetta approach is excellent. Reverse Cheney's words about us being attack to Cheney's is wishing for an attack to vindicate the Bush-Cheney war policies. We need more of this kind of creative thinking to reverse and slam the ReThugs using their own statements. Brilliant !!! Keep it up guys.
The Dems especially Obama do seem to have figured out something crucial about ideology. In this case, that of Mr Cheney, evil IS the eye of the beholder.
The bottom line is (in layman), Cheney is saying to terrorists ----- "Come on over 'cause this country is now less safe". The GOP is strategically sitting back and using Cheney to spew this. Scarborough is just shocked that Schultz would call them out on it and not back down. In the next weeks, watch Scarborough's reactions to this statement. THAT is, and always will be the disclosure of the GOP's INTENT.
It is about time some one came out and told the truth about Cheney and the republican party, they will do anything to discredit the president even if it means putting the country in danger,Cheney is praying for an attack so he can say i told you so, but that is not why the vice president is doing what he is doing, the vice president is doing the dirty work for the party, the people in congress can't come out and flat regect the president so they send the vice out, this is about the color of the man skin in the white house, they know that this man is smart and capable for the office but their is just one little thing, (he is black).
democrats are complicit in this cheney nonsense by the mere fact that it has been talked about this long. this should've been nipped in the bud. its apparent that cheney message has been to prove our nat'l security is breached and another attack happens. panetta was stating the obvious. its our brush back - thru the msm that keeps falling short. there is no space for a hannity, oreilly or beck to spin any of the crap they've been propagating. if obama would release everything but the pics, this argument wouldve been rapped up. unfortunately, the world court in prague would have to arrest bush, cheney and co. as "americans" we can't allow that to happen. not this american, if it was up to me i'd have them all hauled to jail. there is evidence they could care less about nat'l security, it was all about invading iraq.
The president could stop Cheney in his track, all he have to do is let the attorney general do his job, and see how much talking Cheney will do then, this man have said he committed war crimes, so are we a nation of laws or are we a nation of selective laws, one law for the powerful and another for the under class citizen?
The divisive argument that President Obama has made us less safe is based on the misunderstanding that this is determined by whether or not we are attacked again. This is an intentional distraction from the reality that national security depends on many other components outside this important concern. However, this is the signal evidence offered by the republicans because it is the only element where they can demonstrate some success. We need to aggressively point out all of the new strategies from democratic leadership that has already resulted in multiple successes. To name a few, kicking off an effective withdrawal in Iraq freeing our overextended troops, implementing a much more comprehensive strategy in Afghanista
Thank you for pointing out that national security is more than preventing attack. To your arguments, I would add some non-military components of strong national security policy: good infrastructure, education and a strong economy are all necessary to for real national security.
In the same vein, although another attack may be inevitable, the odds of an individual being killed in an attack are so minuscule as to not even figure on the list. All of the areas in which they failed to keep us safe are those that already carried a much higher risk of death than terrorist attack.
The Bush/Cheney administration failed to keep us safe economically. They failed to keep our food supply or imports safe. They failed to protect our environment and in doing so, put our health at greater risk.
Bad in. Good out. Yessss.
Short-seller. Exactly.
Dick Cheney - out of office - is good. Full stop.
It's a good thing the the Democrats are successfully making their point. During the Dubya years, if an idea wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker, it was pretty much ignored.
"One could conceivably state that the Democrats were gleeful with every soldier's death during the Iraq war..."
Could?! That's exactly what Republicans DID do. Going all the way back to the invasion, Democrats, progressives and anyone else who thought the Iraq attack was a bad idea were accused of hoping for defeat, and some on the right even went so far as to make the specific accusation above.
Then, when it became apparent the occupation was going badly, Republicans blamed war opponents for that, too.
As far as Cheney benefiting, that he has done so financially ("big time," as he might say) from the Iraq misadventure, which he relentlessly tried to tie to 9-11, is a matter of public record.
"One could conceivably state that the Democrats were gleeful with every soldier's death during the Iraq war..."
Steven wells, you really don't think that another American was gleeful that any one of our citizen who died in Iraq got some pleasure out of that, their were one idoit who said we could not win the war and that was Reid and he was admonish for using the term we can't win, but what Chaney is doing is way out , he is inviting an attack on the country, what he is saying is that we the nation of laws will break any law we want to regardless of the law and treaties that we have sign and the constitution, but what Cheney is doing is trying to cover his ass and disrespect the president, he was in office for eight years and they mucked up the country.
Cheney is the spear side of the bald eagle/ Obama is the peace side :)
To say that a former VP benefits if American's are killed is not only outrageous, it's ugly.
One could conceivably state that the Democrats were gleeful with every soldier's death during the Iraq war because they could use it against the Administration.
Both statements are reprehensible.
As is yours.... To make the statement that members of a party are gleeful at every soldier death is beyond reprehensible gin0618.
I defy you to deny the monetary benefit of Iraq to Cheney & his pals.
Um, yeah. Can you guess how much Halliburton (cheney's company) made from the war he started? THAT is reprehensible.
Profits went up over 800% and counting.
Cheney has corroborated falsehood after falsehood about iraq and to his discredit has finally lost his moral high ground; though he continues to push his rhetoric. The only feasable conclusion I can see is he benefits from voicing his portend reguardless of the fact he has no personal credibility. perhaps he is speaking to the audience that already knows what they believe and is coaxing for their solidarity in opposition to the decentralization of institutional entitlement i.e. some people are to dumb to make decisions in the interest of the greater good (and that s the way we like them) so I will valuate the priority of decision making by deliberating the context or just lying.
You are right, but I never heard anyone say "Dems were gleeful" or anything like that.
But McCains spokesman said it would help (MCcain) if anther attack happened, remember, that is sick
The difference is, Cheney actually expressed that wish. You don't seriously harbor such thougts about principled opposition do you?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
