Why is Dick Cheney claiming that President Obama is encouraging terrorism? Does that square with the facts?
Obama's attack (along with Pelosi)on the Bush Administration and the CIA's tactics; the agenda to close Guantanamo Bay; the stupidity of O's apology tours; Obama's unfeeling robotic refusal to denounce terrorism; these, and more, add up to Cheney being right-on in his criticism of Obama. More people in positions of "power" need to find some guts and speak out along with Cheney.
The ludicrous thing here is that the suspected terrorist was appointed a lawyer...now the suspect is legally silent.
If an act of terrorism takes place in the near future and the suspected terrorist in custody admits that he knew the plan...the left will receive irreparable political damage regardless of intent.
A major shift of power to either party can be disastrous. Is the right just giving the left enough invisible rope to hang itself?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 … extremism/
I think Janet Napolitano has done a terrible job in her current position. Instead of monitoring veterans returning from war maybe she could have had DHS monitoring potential terrorists that have been pointed out to her by their father. (Christmas Bomber) Ms. Napolitano could do the right thing and hand in her resignation but??
Obama hired her so he should be criticized for his decision.
The sad thing is there have been more acts of terror committed by current service members than former members. Maybe someone can check out officers of the US military who make hostile comments about the country they are sworn to protect! Just a thought
Yup. Obama's decision to close Gitmo and release some detainees back to Yemen in addition to his treatment of the shooter at Fort Hood, the would be Christmas airline bomber, and his decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in a criminal trial in MY all clearly point to Obama's weakness on terrorists. I can add his foreign policy towards Iran and N. Korea as well as his willingness to sign away American sovereignty in a cap and trade treaty also shows a weakness in his presidency that will encourage terrorists. In addition, as Cheney indicates the rhetoric from the white house is also soft on terror. I honestly can't see how you can make the case for the opposite!
So the invasion of Iraq was a smart move?
Does being "hard" on terror mean that you have to do stupid things? Or can you pursue international terrorists using a combination of military force, law enforcement/courts, and diplomatic means?
The baddest dudes I know are the quietest. Real power doesn't come from looking a particular way or creating a certain impression (although appearances can be important, I agree).
Judge Obama's policies by their effectiveness, not by how tough they appear at first glance.
frankly I think Dick Cheney is one fry short of a Happy Meal.
I agree. He's had several heart attacks and possibly strokes. He may well have suffered brain damage. And that combined with a couple of character defects may explain his current rants.
Ralph Deeds wrote:
Why is Dick Cheney claiming that President Obama is encouraging terrorism? Does that square with the facts?
I cannot claim to fathom the labyrinthine mechaninations of the former Vice President, but I can certainly say that it does not square with any facts. Dick Cheney and others are still beating war drums when their own strategies did little but profit bankers, oil companies, and military contractors--aka campaign contributors--while playing into the hands of the terrorists. War is a Racket.
Even a cursory look into the actions of Al Quaeda reveals that their goal is the financial collapse of the West, America in particular. The Mujaheddin successfully brought about the collapse of the Soviets and now they are using similar strategies against us. Every dollar we spend to trick ourselves into believing we are safer brings us one step closer to ruin. By not overreacting the President is keeping us safer. Cheney-Bush-Rove would have already dropped troops in Yemen and that would solve nothing. If we are attacking anyone but Al Quaeda, we're essentially slitting our own throats.
With the 2010 elections nearing, I'd say the timing is just about right.
Here is coverage from Meet the Press on this topic yesterday including a statement by John Brennan, White House Deputy National Security Adviser.
Obama has presented a new military plan to deal with Afghanistan including the dispatching of 30,000 more troops. He has stepped up American military activities against Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Yemen. Cheney said the underwear bomber should have been sent to a military court instead of a U.S. Federal court, forgetting that the "shoe bomber" was tried in a U.S. Federal court, convicted and serving a life sentence in a U.S. Federal prison. What more does he expect the President to do?
He expects him to act like a patriotic American.
But that's impossible, because Obama isn't that.
John Breenan is a putz, an Obama pawn.
If Obama was really against terrorism, he would've put all his efforts into finding Bin Ladin already, instead of bullying the USA into hellish immorality and socialized healthcare.
I can picture the agenda about now......
..Obama's still letting Osama run free, until maybe time for the next Presidential election, where he can once again be called a "savior".
So why hasn't bin Laden been captured in the 8 years since 9/11?
I have a theory that it's 'cause he's been in The White House. At least since January 2009. ha
Apparently we don't know where Bin Laden is. Someone said the other day that we haven't received any reliable intelligence on where he's located in six years or so. Despite the fact that there is a $50 million price on his head.
Doubtless bin Laden's secretive intelligence network informed him about the existence of airline tickets, and places like Australia with gigantic areas with no-one in them... or the former Soviet Union.... a quick shave, some glasses, and off we fly
Bin Laden hasn't been heard from for six years because he probably got killed in the bombings early on. We were using bunker buster bombs early on which may have got him hiding out in a cave.
We've managed to plop ourselves down in two more countries since then though. Yemen looks pretty, too. I'm just saying.
Cheney does have an agenda. "The Apology Tour" is a perfect example of a man who doesn't have the experience needed to do a decent job. Why does he think a european-America is a good thing? We look like a bunch of pansies. The health care spoof makes us look like east european-Americans.
Well, to balance my earlier statement: Um, neither side is doing this nation any favors. Choose a side if you want, but you're just yelling at each other whilst the machine rolls on.....
That's an interesting point. The conservatives seem to quiet down when Hee-Haw reruns are on. They seem particularly silly right after Glenn Beck and Sword of the Lord.
Almost makes you want to go out and buy one of those cuddly Karl Rove Chia Pets and hug him, and feed him, and call him George....
Cheney deeply believes in the supremecy of the Executive Branch....from his time with Nixon, to his track record in Congress, to his time as Vice President, he has done whatever he could, and rallied whatever force he could to make the Executive stronger...
Now here is the deeper issue...
Firstly he continues to criticize Obama for not utilizing his office more, or in a way that Cheney and others of his persuasion want...or display that they want....
Over this period, the next four years, this will continue, and expand...and popular conceptions will be tested and manipulated over that time span...
Eventually a Republican, and potentially a conservative one at that, will find their way to Executive power.....and have what kind of tools to work with?
But, I think there is also something else....I don't believe the mindset of the supreme Executive are all conservative Republicans, or Democrats, or what have you.....it transcends all of these....it is the power to dispense funds...to authorize programs, to secretly operate behind a cloak of Executive priviledge.....which faction is in power when this shift ultimately occurs is another matter...
Read up on this man and what he has publicly left behind him....understand what he represents...and whom..
you nailed it all right.
i heard his wife was living in Iran these days.
"Heart of Darkness" by Michelle Cottle in The New Republic
http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view. … ;num=28194
What is wrong with Dick Cheney? Since the earliest days of his vice presidency, people have been asking this question. At first, it was mostly out of partisan pique; but, increasingly, it's in troubled tones, as one of the most powerful men on the planet grows ever more rigid, belligerent, and just plain odd in both his public utterances ("Go fuck yourself," Senator Leahy) and private actions (shoot a man in the face and not bother to call your boss 'til the next day: What's up with that?). In October 2005, longtime Bush-Cheney pal Brent Scowcroft fanned the Dick-has-changed flames when he told The New Yorker, "I consider Cheney a good friend--I've known him for thirty years. But Dick Cheney I don't know anymore." By the following February, a Newsweek profile noted that speculation as to the causes of the vice president's "darkening persona" had become a favorite Beltway parlor game. ("Has he been transformed, warped, perhaps corrupted--by stress, wealth, aging, illness, the real terrors of the world or possibly some inner goblins?") Fast-forward a year, and Cheney can hardly open his mouth without setting off a fresh wave of buzz about whether he has finally gone 'round the bend. As Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland recently asked, "Is the vice president losing his influence, or perhaps his mind?
I think the recent ramblings of Cheney reflect his desire to continue the GOP agenda and secure more influence for the many collegues he has secured government contracts for. Cheney is a whiley politician and with no other pitbull for the party to call on he is looking out for himself.
Interesting how all the liberals here ignored the points I laid out defending Cheney's stance. Now, I was never a big Cheney fan, but he's right on in pointing out Obama's weakness on terrorists.
Interesting how you have labeled evryone who disagrees with your myopic viewpoint as liberal. By your logic, the world is 99% liberal. You must be terrified.
It's very amusing that you find the term liberal to be an insult. Did you feel that way before RushGlennSean told you to?
You still think Joan Baez is relevant dont you
I don't see the word as an insult, but as a description of a progressive philosophy. A school of thought that places society over the individual, the largest minority in the world, and consider it evil.
It's neither good nor bad but simply IS. The only person that would feel offended by such a label is one with a conscience that knows the difference between right and wrong. Someone that truly believes in liberalism should be proud to have that label.
So all of the "liberal" organizations devoted to protecting the rights of minorities are actually made up of closet Republicans? Interesting theory.
I would agree with you but you have a tendency to apply a "liberal" amount of negative adjectives every time you mention liberals and the socialist agenda. Pun intended.
I think Cheney's BS is a smokescreen to cover his own ass for having tortured people contrary to US law and for having been the inspiration for the Iraq invasion. The longer that the majority of nations manages to contain and confine terrorist activity, the more horrendous the Bush/Cheney legacy looks. I think Cheney's fingerpointing is misguided, however, because it keeps his black memory alive and increases the likelihood he might actually be called to account someday.
by PrettyPanther2 years ago
I live in Oregon, so I have been closely following the occupation of the Malheur Refuge by "militants." Here is a detailed timeline: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north … ne_of.htmlNone...
by Deforest5 years ago
The US officially removed the MKO (people's Mujahedin of Iran) from its blacklist of terrorist organizations. The same ones who recently killed Iranian scientists. The same organization that was trained, that is funded...
by Rachel Woodruff6 years ago
If the election was held tomorrow would you vote for Obama, or anyone else, and why?Television news outlets always like to ask the question if the election was held tomorrow, would voters reelect the current President...
by cjhunsinger2 years ago
As the President of the United States continues to refuse to identify on going acts of Islamic terrorism with Islam; is his refusal to do so a direct or tacit approval or support for the religion of Islam and Sharia law...
by ahorseback2 years ago
We've seen it all over the world for decades , since at least as far back as the seventies , With the ease of travel these days , with our open border policy , with the...
by Ralph Deeds8 years ago
Do you agree with Lynn Cheney and Bill Kristol's criticism of 7 Justice Department lawyers who provided legal representation to accused terrorists, calling them "The Al Qaeda Seven"? Here's a link to the...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.