Partisan Political Hack Leon Panetta Demonizes Dick Cheney

Leon Panetta is proving what a partisan political hack Americans always should have known he is and always has been.  I first called Panetta a “partisan political hack” back in January when he was first nominated.  And Panetta’s outrageous cheap-shot at Dick Cheney is nothing short than the tactics of a partisan political hack.

The difference between the CIA and the KGB has always been that the one was geared toward intelligence, while the latter was geared toward enforcing political ideology.  At least until Barack Obama came along, that is.  Now we’ve got our first “communist show trials” since the days of McCarthy and the latter days of the USSR in the works.

And now we’ve got Obama’s Homeland Security defining “rightwing extremists” in terms of Obama’s conservative political opponents (not to mention returning combat veterans), and we’ve also got Leon Panetta demonizing political disagreement by personally attacking the motives of conservatives.

Cheney: I Hope Panetta Was ‘Misquoted’ in Claiming My Wish for Attack
After the CIA director apparently told The New Yorker that he thinks the former vice president is crossing his fingers for another attack on America, Dick Cheney says he hopes his “old friend” didn’t really say those words.

FOXNews.com
Monday, June 15, 2009

Dick Cheney says he wants to know if he heard Leon Panetta correctly.

After the CIA director apparently told The New Yorker that he thinks the former vice president is crossing his fingers for another attack on America, Cheney said Monday he hopes his “old friend” didn’t really say those words.

“I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted,” Cheney said, in a written statement to FOX News. “The important thing is whether the Obama administration will continue the policies that have kept us safe for the past eight years.”

Others were not quite willing to give Panetta the benefit of the doubt, as his politically charged quote stirred controversy on Capitol Hill.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called on Panetta to “retract immediately” his statement, arguing that the director crossed the line.

“I disagreed with the Cheney policy on interrogation techniques, but never did it cross my mind that Dick Cheney would ever want an attack on the United States of America,” the former GOP presidential candidate told FOX News Monday. “And it’s unfair, and I think that Mr. Panetta should retract, and retract immediately.

“By the way, I hear morale is not at an all-time high over at the CIA under Mr. Panetta’s leadership,” he said.

Panetta, a long-time Washington insider with scant intelligence experience, has been caught in the middle of a political war during his first few months on the job. First, he had to deal with morale issues as President Obama cracked down on the rules for detainee interrogations. Then he stepped up to dispute House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s allegation that the CIA misled Congress about the use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques.

This time, he’s firing back against Cheney’s frequent media appearances in which he’s accused Obama of making America less safe.

According to The New Yorker, Panetta said Cheney “smells some blood in the water” on the security issue.

“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,” he said, according to the piece.

Asked about the statement, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs ducked.

“I’m not going to get into motivations. That’s not what our business is. The president’s concern is keeping the American people safe,” Gibbs said Monday.

FOX News’ Mike Emanuel contributed to this report.

Maybe Gibbs isn’t “going to get into motivations.”  But his fellow liberal hack – CIA Director Leon Panetta – sure will.

Maybe the CIA has some kind of “motive analyzer” that Panetta zapped Dick Cheney with.  In the liberal tradition, I must ask, “Doesn’t Panetta need some kind of warrant to zap private citizen Cheney with his spook motive-detector gizmo?  Liberals and the ACLU should be crawling out of the woodwork.  Don’t forget, that’s what they did when they found out that the government was listening in to calls made to or from people on the terrorist watch list to or from this country.

This is classic liberal politics of demonization and demagoguery.  This is classic Nancy Pelosi.  This is classic Barack Obama.

A quote from an earlier article about the LAST TIME liberals hatefully and viciously teed-off on Dick Cheney should serve to show just how often Obama has demagogued – and hypocritically demagogued at that – Bush-era policies:

Right now, liberals like Keith Olbermann are teeing off on conservatives for waterboarding when we now learn that liberals like Nancy Pelosi and many other Democrats were fully briefed on “enhanced interrogation techniques that had been employed,” and neither said or did anything to prevent such techniques.  And even the very liberal new CIA Director under Obam0, Leon Panetta, essentially says Pelosi is lying.  How are their attacks now anything but partisan demagoguery?

And right now, liberals including Barack Obama himself are deceitfully claiming the moral high ground even as the new liberal administration takes many of the same positions that it hypocritically and demagogically found so hateful on the campaign trail.  As many policies as Obama has undone that will make this country less safe, there have been almost as many that he once demonized, only to follow himself once in office.

For instance, President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate.  Given that President Bush used the technique against only three individuals shortly after the worst disaster in US history, how is Obama any different?  In fact he’s worse, because Bush and Cheney never demagogued the issue as Obama has repeatedly done.

Obama demonized Bush over the Bush policy on rendition.  But now this demagogue is quietly continuing to carry out the same rendition policy – abducting terrorist suspects and sending them to countries that will use harsh interrogation methods – even as he congratulates himself in front of a fawning media for his being better than Bush.  But Obama isn’t better than Bush and Cheney; he’s worse.  Because he’s a hypocrite and a demagogue.

In the words of the New York Times, military commissions was “a concept he criticized bitterly as a presidential candidate.”  But now the hypocrite and demagogue is going to quietly use them himself.

And Obama has indicated that he likewise reserves the right to continue to hold some prisoners without trial indefinitely – a position he demonized during the campaign.  How can such a man who so hypocritically employed such demagoguery only to come to the same position as the man he demagogued claim any semblance of moral high ground?  Obama is lower than Bush in his character, not higher.  Bush and Cheney didn’t self-righteously demagogue; only Obama did.

Dick Cheney is often called “Darth Vader” by the left.  But I think in Cheney’s gracious response to Panetta’s vicious, hateful, and evil comment who the REAL “Darth Vaders” are.  Panetta savagely attacked Cheney’s motives; Cheney responded by politely pointing at policy disagreement.

Now that liberals have opened the door wide to attacking people based on their motives and their politics, let me do a little “motive assessment” of my own: Maybe Leon Panetta is aware that the morale of his agency is at a shocking low after the butchery Democrats have done to its credibility.  And maybe he is aware – due to the “depressed, sullen, and enraged” morale at the CIA in the wake of the Obama administration’s and Democrat’s attacks against them – that the United States is now exposed to another massive terrorist attack.

From a Newsweek article on the poor morale of the CIA:

[T]he CIA better change their mission to “CYA,” because our government is not going to stand behind you.”

Those concerns were echoed by a retired undercover operative who still works under contract for the agency (and asked to remain anonymous when discussing internal agency politics). Clandestine Service officers are both demoralized and angry at Obama’s decisions to release the memos and ban future agency use of aggressive interrogation tactics, the former operative said. “It embarrasses our families. You just can’t keep hitting us. Sooner or later we’re going to stop going out and working.” The official added that “a lot of offense was taken” among some Clandestine Service veterans when Obama declared that the interrogation practices the agency employed under Bush were wrong, even though the new Administration would not prosecute operatives for carrying them out.

Just maybe Panetta and his boss realize that the only way to avoid blame for such an upcoming attack will be to try to preemptively blame and scapegoat  conservatives by saying that THEY are somehow more responsible than the Democrats who totally undermined our war on terror at every single turn because conservatives might have somehow hoped for it.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “Partisan Political Hack Leon Panetta Demonizes Dick Cheney”

  1. Aluceo Says:

    WHY THE CHENEYS WON’T LEAVE THE SCENE: A QUESTION OF JOURNALISTIC DEONTOLOGY!

    The recent appearances of the Cheneys over the media as a credible political opponent on par to the Obama administration\’s policies and stances raises an issue of journalistic deontology! This is definitely of artificial making.

    On the one hand, we\’ve got a legitimately elected President of the United States who has undergone the rigorous electoral process having to make his case to the American people and coming out successful in eliciting the policies he intends to carry out during his mandate within the confines of the American political institutional structure and process.

    On the other hand, we\’ve got political personae (the Cheneys) who are effectively being presented by the media as a legitimate opponent on par to the Obama administration whereas they do not bear any electoral mandate whatsoever for the political views they profer and with no consequent responsiblity, stake and risk that will arise from any such mandate while the President is tied to them.

    For comments/expressions of opinion on the President\’s policies, their views have been given such a broad artificial reception by the media that runs very contrary to the expression of opinion as we\’ve come to know it. These views are rather given almost the same weight and placed on par as the political stances of a legitimately elected president with a legitimate mandate for the policies he is undertaking while the Cheney\’s hold no such legitimate mandate and with no accompanying political accountability whatsoever.

    The issue here is that such attitude by the media is contrary to what we\’ve come to expect from normal implicit democratic rules. If the Cheneys had any pretense for policies they wished to be implemented after the Bush Administration, the solution would have simply been for Dick or Liz to run for president. Since they didn\’t, it is artificial for the media to strive to present them as a counterweight on par to the Obama administration\’s policies well beyong what will be expected for the opinion of a simple citizen that the Cheneys are now notwithstanding their previous political roles.

    And by the way, by extension is it acceptable that any citizen, no matter what self-righteous pretense they might have, to be artificially given a similar counterweight role on par with the President on any policy issues of the Obama administration while not holding any legitimate political mandate for which they will be politically accountable for their stances? It can be understandable, that the Cheneys can be of direct concern when it comes to matters of direct relation to political issues having to do with Cheney\’s role in the Bush administration. But to raise their views on the policies and stances the administration should take on par with the President undermines appropriate journalistic deontology because as we should all know by now \”elections do matter\”.

    What strikes the mind here is that the Cheneys have perfectly understood this \”naïvété\” of the media and are using this \”media confusion about fairness\” to artificially strive to extirpate Mr. Dick Cheney from accusations of introducing torture policies during the Bush Administration among other political accusations. Their strategy is very simple. Legally, Cheney can\’t make it (they know that secretly). In all courts of law, so-called EITs are definitely torture practices. Besides, the facts as we know them are overwhelmingly against him and the Bush Administration, and Dick Cheney\’s contradictions are extensive.

    The real strategy of the Cheney\’s here is totally otherly: turn it \”political\”. First, saying torture works and was for the good of the country should elicit the fervour of many Americans. Afterall, all what is needed is that a substantial number of Americans polled buy to this argument, and then the issue’s legal underpinning may be undermined.

    Secondly, posing artificially as the right wing counterweight to the Obama\’s administration policies elicits the impression and fervour in some quarters particularly to the right that he is making the President moderate and thus he is political useful. A look at this second political trick shows how the media has effectively been manipulated: knowing fairly well that in his administrative role the President will have to take practical and pragmatic postures with respect to the release of photos of abused detainees as well as on other policies, all what Dick simply have to do is to posit that he is against releasing the pictures and pretend to take critical policy issues postures on the right, making him seemingly a moderating influence on the President.

    Thirdly, the Cheneys simply have to claim that Obama is following the Bush Administration’s policies he criticized pointing to his strategies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo. In this case too, the media is manipulated as they ignore the fact that the Obama administration does not have the luxury of starting from scratch as Bush had on all these issues but rather adopts a “course correction strategy” of the situations to bring them as close as possible to what he advocates.

    The fact is that, the underlying strategy of Dick and her daughter is to make this three steps political trick extirpate Dick from the accusations levied against the former administration. The sad thing is that the media is \”naïvely\” falling for these political tricks!

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Aluceo,
    Wow! From an unrelenting criticism in the form of “Bush derangement syndrome” that held “it is our duty to protest Bush policies” to your “YOU MUST RESPECT THE ELECTION AND REFRAIN FROM PROTESTING! SEIG OBAMA!!!”

    What amazingly blatant hypocrisy. You don’t see this kind of “How DARE you do to our president what we did for eight years to yours!” every single day. It’s simply stunning.

    Dick Cheney got sick and tired of having your boy Obama demonize him and his administration and is exercising his right to speak out. It’s too bad that liberals like Aluceo despise that right of free speech so much. That’s where “Fairness Doctrine” psychosis comes from – and it always comes from the left the moment they get power.

    In the very article you are commenting on, I enumerated just some of the policies that Obama demonized as a candidate, only to embrace them now, complete with the links to articles:

    And right now, liberals including Barack Obama himself are deceitfully claiming the moral high ground even as the new liberal administration takes many of the same positions that it hypocritically and demagogically found so hateful on the campaign trail. As many policies as Obama has undone that will make this country less safe, there have been almost as many that he once demonized, only to follow himself once in office.

    For instance, President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. Given that President Bush used the technique against only three individuals shortly after the worst disaster in US history, how is Obama any different? In fact he’s worse, because Bush and Cheney never demagogued the issue as Obama has repeatedly done.

    Obama demonized Bush over the Bush policy on rendition. But now this demagogue is quietly continuing to carry out the same rendition policy – abducting terrorist suspects and sending them to countries that will use harsh interrogation methods – even as he congratulates himself in front of a fawning media for his being better than Bush. But Obama isn’t better than Bush and Cheney; he’s worse. Because he’s a hypocrite and a demagogue.

    In the words of the New York Times, military commissions was “a concept he criticized bitterly as a presidential candidate.” But now the hypocrite and demagogue is going to quietly use them himself.

    And Obama has indicated that he likewise reserves the right to continue to hold some prisoners without trial indefinitely – a position he demonized during the campaign. How can such a man who so hypocritically employed such demagoguery only to come to the same position as the man he demagogued claim any semblance of moral high ground? Obama is lower than Bush in his character, not higher. Bush and Cheney didn’t self-righteously demagogue; only Obama did.

    Maybe Dick Cheny doesn’t like being called a “torturer” and having a hypocrite demagogue whose now doing many of the SAME things he demonized Bush-Cheney over call him evil. Maybe he has something to say about that.

  3. Aluceo Says:

    Great blog you got Michael! I beg to disagree though with the points you’ve raised. Actually, I’ll like to think I’m more pro-American than pro-liberal. Many of the Bush Administration policies spearheaded by Cheney have done so much harm to this country: not least, the costly mess in Iraq and Cheney’s torture policies on our image around the world.

    As I emphasized before, it is definitely artificial for Cheney to take up center stage in the media on every policy posture taken by the Obama Administration for the simple fact that he does not hold any political mandate with no accountability whatsoever less our political process loses its meaning. If Cheney (or for that matter her daughter) had any such pretense, he would have simply ran for President.

    As equally emphasized before, Obama does not have the luxury of revoking abruptly all the policies of the previous administration with which he disagrees politically simply from an “administrative” standpoint as starting all over is unrealistic. So what he is doing is to adapt a “course correction strategy”.

    With military commissions, a legal framework approved by the judicial and legislative branches will be set up unlike during the Bush Administration where these commissions existed in “legal limbo” and were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. As for rendition, the Obama Administration policy unlike the Bush Administration policy is to hand over foreign detainees to their foreign governments only on the assurance that they will not be tortured. Further, the CIA will no longer move detainees to “black sites” (secret CIA prisons) since these have been ordered to be closed. The point is Obama is determined to remain within the bounds of the law. Even with the issue of indefinite detention of prisoners, the Obama Administration has advanced that it will regularly seek the approval of the legal and judicial branches.

    On the point of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs), Cheney’s logic is simply a crappy fallacy. It is certainly the obligation of the President to be open to take any action as he might deem appropriate in the case of any future eventuality whatever its nature (and not only with respect to a terrorism related emergency). Now it is one thing for the President to be open to take any such action (on the basis of this broad principle) and another thing to purport that because in principle he is open to any such future eventuality, he should validate any unlawful principle as the policy of the administration. In which case he may just as well validate the overriding of any legal principle, for instance the fifth amendment, since there is the remote possibility that there might be a future eventuality which may require him to be open to an action that compromises the fifth amendment.

    The President’s official stance is always for the primacy of legality. To follow Dick Cheney’s logic, then no legal principle should be upheld by the President as well, since there is a remote possibility that he may be open to override it in case of a future eventuality. The fact is the onus for overriding a legal principle rests on the exception to the legal principle, and it does not rest on the legal principle in of itself as Cheney seems to purport. With the EITs (torture policy), the immediate threat of terrorist action and efficiency arguments raised by Cheney as the exception to the legal principle (Geneva protocol and other legal rules on torture) fail awfully given the details we now have of how these EITs were carried out.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m not going to deny your being “pro-American,” though it really bothers me that you deny being equally gracious to people like Dick Cheney. Is he not “pro-American” too?

    Why is it that you think only a man running for President have the right to speak out? Are YOU running for president? Should I shut you out because you’re not? Since when did being a private citizen disqualify one from having the right of free speech?

    Dick Cheney never intended to run for President. We’ve known that for years. The man has a heart condition. That shouldn’t disqualify him from speaking. Or from being heard.

    You argue that Cheney’s logic on EIT is “simply a crappy fallacy.” Let me share some facts with you:

    CIA director George Tenent – who was appointed to his position by Bill Clinton – said that the enhanced interrogations by themselves were “Worth more than the FBI, CIA and NSA put together.” Career intelligence professional and CIA Director General Michael Hayden said, “fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those [harsh] interrogations.” In fact, President Obama’s very own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” A Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005 notes that “the CIA believes ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.’ . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques.”

    So, while I sincerely appreciate your efforts to be gracious and polite, I have to say that it’s NOT Dick Cheney who has “the crappy fallacy” for logic. Dick Cheney has intelligence professionals from ALL sides – including a Clinton appointee and an Obama appointee – agreeing with his core views on enhanced interrogation. The EITs worked. They produced intelligence critical to the war on terror. They saved American lives.

    I’m not going to comment on “legal principles” violated since you don’t bother to state what they are.

    I WILL comment on Geneva protocal and point out the fact that terrorists do NOT fall under those protocols. As a former soldier, I can tell you that the Geneva and Hague conventions applied to – and only to – 1) uniformed soldiers 2) under the lawful chain of command 3) of a recognized nation-state who 4) war against soldiers (not civilians) of their enemy 5) following a declaration of war. Terrorists are not ANY of these.

    I will further inform you that to give full recognition of the status of terrorists is incredibly dangerous and foolish. You in fact encourage foreign nations to have their soldiers remove their uniforms, conceal themselves within civilian populations of their enemies, and commit acts of mayhem. And you reward that. Because you demand that such people receive the SAME treatment as soldiers who fight under the 5 criterion that I described.

    And I would call THAT logic “crappy fallacy.”

    If you do some research, you will see that even the LEFT is arguing that there is no fundamental difference between what Obama is doing versus what Bush did on the issues that I raised that prove that Obama was a demagogue who demonized Bush before doing the same things Bush did.

  5. Aluceo Says:

    Not so! the LEFT is not arguing there is no fundamental difference between the Obama and Bush administrations. Actually, it is rather a failure to appreciate that Obama is involved in a “course correction strategy”.

    I’ll add that I don’t dispute Cheney’s right to speak. What I dispute is the media systematically portraying Cheney on par with the President on almost every policy posture of the Obama administration since Cheney has no political mandate to play such a role. It is definitely artificial!

    On EITs, the fact is Dick Cheney used his position to manipulate his subordinates and keep the President (George W. Bush) in the dark. Former CIA and other subordinate officials including George Tenet were simply cohesed to take this unorthodox positions. The fact of the matter is that Cheney strove for the setting up of a bogus legal framework and bogus accounts on the need and efficacy of torture. See link to get an insight on Cheney’s methods as Vice-president. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091401974.html)

    Accounts by professional interrogators of the FBI and CIA clearly indicate that torture does not work and was (and is) illegal. The reason why Cheney strove to contract private interrogators who had no previous interrogation experience for the sake of providing fodder for the policies he sought, and not to prevent likely terror attacks. Actually, all the critical information gather from the detainees were obtained by professional interrogators like Ali Soufan who were instead hampered by these contractors.

    The fact is Dick Cheney machinations have had the grave consequence of undermining American power and prestige at the beginning of the 21st century with his lack of concern in CIA warning reports on the threat of al qaida which led to the 9/11 attacks, then involvement in Iraq with the massive costs to the US both financially and in life (4000+ soldiers dead and 30000+ handicapped) and not least his torture policies sapping American moral authority.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    I googled the phrase “Obama as bad as Bush” and found this immediately. You are simply factually wrong when you tell me that “the LEFT is not arguing there is no fundamental difference between the Obama and Bush administrations.”

    His usual cheerleaders on the left are outraged by the decision, saying he’s caved in to those who vehemently defend the Bush administration, especially former vice-president Dick Cheney.

    “This is an unbelievable moment. Dick Cheney’s PR offensive over the last month actually worked,” wrote Cenk Uygur on the left-leaning Daily Kos website.

    “Barack Obama just crumbled and will follow Cheney’s command to not release the new set of detainee abuse pictures.”

    You are also simply wrong on the facts regarding “Cheney manipulating.” The THREE intelligence professionals I cited gave their opinions AFTER Cheney was out of office. So maybe you could explain how he manipulated anybody or anything. You are completely wrong.

    You are also wrong on trying to argue that the media is presenting “equal time” and any kind of a fair debate between Obama and Cheney. Rather, Barack Obama personally CHOSE to present himself against Dick Cheney by CHOOSING to give a press conference on the same day that Dick Cheney was (and had been for weeks) scheduled to speak on the subject of national security. Obama WANTED to position himself against Cheney because he knows that he is currently popular, while Cheney has been demonized. And here you are now, laughably, blaming Dick Cheney for the fact that Barack Obama chose to go after him.

    Just for the record: Dick Cheney didn’t say, “Hey, I got an idea; let’s torture people!” The CIA approached the White House because THEIR professionals said, “We need to have this authority.”

    In the spring of 2002, the CIA sought approval for interrogations of high-level Al-Qaeda detainees, which led to White House briefings by CIA director George Tenet and a National Security Council review that included attorney general John Ashcroft and defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

    CIA first sought waterboarding powers in May 2002
    The CIA first requested in May 2002 to be allowed to question terrorism suspects with a near-drowning technique known as waterboarding, according to a document made public on Wednesday.

    It WAS our professionals who wanted to pursue enhanced interrogation. YOU ARE WRONG. When the fecal matter hit the rotary oscillator, the CIA PROFESSIONALS wanted to be able to waterboard because that was the only way to get what we needed to know from hardened terrorists. Your irrelevant politically correct garbage you can find from the “FBI” aside.

    That same article, by the way, describes how waterboarding has been used as a training procedure on our soldiers and pilots. For the record, they did NOT have their fingers cut off, or their internal organs pummeled, or anything that would TRULY qualify as torture. Nothing that was done to the terrorists hadn’t been previously done to train our very own soldiers and pilots. So, when you use the word “torture,” you are in fact using the word in an IDEOLOGICAL way.

    I propose a test between us. I get to torture you all I want, and you get to be nice to me, and we’ll see who gives up information (say, bank account information) first. And I get to REALLY torture you. I get to saw your fingers off one by one until you tell me your bank account numbers and all the information I need to transfer your funds into my account. You, on the other hand, get to say things like, “Pretty, pretty please?” And we’ll really see what works. I guarantee you: you will tell me your bank account number, and I will not tell you mine.

    First of all, waterboarding was used against ONLY three guys. And those three guys – according to the intelligence professionals themselves – ONLY gave up the information after the use of EIT. That is a documented fact. These guys were hardened terrorists who were willing to kill, and willing to die. You think they were just going to give up vital intel based on your “pretty, pretty please?” method to the “Great Satan”? Are you genuinely that completely naive?

    Second of all, the intelligence professionals who used the EITs KNOW that the answers they get are not necessarily “gospel” truth. But YOU tell ME now what interrogation method IS. Rather, they used EITs to collect certain information from certain people that they had the ability to verify.

  7. Aluceo Says:

    NOT really! Actually, the fact is no one can deny the nuances towards legality in Obama policies, that is a fact! Of course, the frustration of the extreme left is because they are naïve to think that the President will govern as an extreme left.

    The fact is, it is Dick Cheney and her daughter making a scathing media tour against the President. More than 50 appearances on national tv for both since Cheney left office.

    In any case, the scrutiny is still going on the “Cheney policies” with both the legal cases and congressional investigation. My bet is Cheney won’t make his way out politically, as he seems to anticipate, he will be caught by the law.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    First, I can’t help but notice you don’t want to lose all your digits telling me your bank account number. And I actually commend you for that: as it is OBVIOUS that tough interrogation works, while “pretty please” does not. Our use of EIT yielded fully HALF the information we desperately needed to break an organization that had murdered 3,000 Americans in a single attack. Those interrogations produced more useful intelligence than everything else that the CIA, NSA, and FBI did together, according to the professionals. As I documented for you on June 17.

    Second, you simply have no clue what the ramifications you are describing are: we’ve NEVER prosecuted our political leaders for their policy decisions before. But that is what you want to do now. We could have – and by your standard most definitely SHOULD have – prosecuted FDR for his “crimes” in FIREBOMBING Tokyo and Dresden and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. We SHOULD have on your view prosecuted Truman for the atomic bombs. We SHOULD have prosecuted John F. Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs AND Vietnam; and we SHOULD have prosecuted LBJ for his “crimes” in Vietnam. We further should have prosecuted Bill Clinton not only for his “wag the dog” attack on a plant in Khartoum that killed 27 people on a false pretense. We likewise SHOULD prosecute Barack Obama for his role as Commander in chief for ordering an attack that killed some 30 civilians in Afghanistan’s Farah province.

    In every one of these cases, there are dead civilians. And you’re going to single out “waterboarding” three people, none of whom were killed or even injured??? Don’t you DARE forget to prosecute Nancy Pelosi and EVERY other politician who was briefed on it, also, btw.

    That last shows just how absurd your point is. After we were attacked and 3,000 of our citizens were murdered, the US leadership realized that we were wide open for further attacks; our open society – particularly with our open borders – make it virtually impossible to guarantee against such attacks. So BOTH parties’ leaderships made some incredibly tough decisions, doing the best they could at the time.

    At the time of the 9/11 attacks, it was widely believed we would be hit again. Do you know what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – who refused to talk about operations he knew about until he was waterboarded – said after his capture? He said the American response was so overwhelming and so massive that he doubted whether al Qaeda would ever dare to attack the US again. And that was because people whom you now want to see prosecuted made decisions to keep you and your family safe.

    I DOCUMENTED Obama doing the same things that he demonized Bush for doing, and you say, “Oh, Obama is doing things slightly differently, so it’s not bad anymore.” BULLCRAP! It either wasn’t bad before, or it’s BAD NOW! Rendition. Enhanced Interrogation. Holding captured terrorists without trial indefinitely. Military commissions. These are NOT things Obama said he would do slightly differently; these were things he called evil and swore he would end.

    I think it is rather pathetic of you that you join in the calls for the prosecution of Cheney for doing such things, and then say of Obama for doing the SAME things, “It’s okay now, because it’s MY people doing it.”

    Are you willing to accept the consequences of political prosecutions, of punishing the other party for policy differences? Will it then bother you if Republicans retaliate when THEY get back to power by putting Barack Obama in prison for whatever we think violates what WE think he should or should not have done? The mood of the country is turning; we may well have TOTAL REPUBLICAN control in four years. Do you really want to create a climate of political vengeance? If you come after Dick Cheney, don’t think the right won’t come after the left with even greater vengeance. Do you truly think that’s a good idea?

    Barack Obama – who deceitfully promised he would transcend political differences – began the process of demonizing the Bush administration. And you are angry with Dick Cheney for firing back? For standing up for policies he believes kept this country safe? For standing up for his own honor? Why is it that you have no problem for one public denunciation after another from the left, but you now have huge problems with those who have been repeatedly publicly denounced standing up for themselves?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: