« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Cheney: If You Disagree With Me, You Don't Take 9/11 Seriously
Here's what might you might call the nut graf of Dick Cheney's forthcoming speech, which was released a little earlier:
So we're left to draw one of two conclusions - and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over 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.
In other words, if you oppose Dick Cheney's approach to the war on terror, you're not taking 9/11 seriously.
You can see why Cheney would want to frame the debate this way.
Advertisement
Josh
Zachary
Children have a natural instinct to balk against the age old statement from an authority figure; "...because I said so."
Even a kid wants something more rational than that to operate with.
Cheney can't work with rational. He's told us so.
May 21, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The monumental continued arrogance of the man still amazes and appalls me. If you're not with us you're ag'in us? America love it or leave it? Because I'm the father and I say so? I wish everyone would just ignore him. He's only doing this to shill for his speaking engagement fees. Treat him like the over the hill con artist he really is and let's really talk about this issue. Please please Dems don't let Cheney be the one who frames this discussion. Bush and Cheney's policies failed and we need to move on. Don't let Tom and Newt and Dick be the ones who do all the talking. This man is just the Bernie Madoff of politics.
May 21, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the ways they are framing the debate is by asserting that hteir amoral adhoc approach worked. However if you look at their record, it was no better than Clinton's. They both had a world trade center bombing in the first year of their administration. They both had a couple of American Embassies attacked (Kenya, Tanzania, Syria and Yemen). They both had suicide attacks against military targets (Cole, any number of them in Iraq). They both had serious domestic terrorist incidents (Anthrax, Oklahoma bombing) Why doesn't anyone question their assertion that these extreme and illegal technique actually kept us safe. Their record is no better than the previous 8 years and in some ways much much worse.
May 21, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Woah, Nellie. Clinton's attack happened within the first month of his administration. Prior to 1993 NOBODY in the US understood the concept of terrorism. However, AFTER the 1993 attack we, the US, started to PAY ATTENTION. There were no attacks on our soil during the remaining Clinton years BECAUSE WE PAID ATTENTION. In 2001 the Bush/DICK administration CHOSE NOT TO PAY ATTENTION. The result of that CHOICE was 9/11. The reason we were not hit during the remainder of Bush/DICK administration is because we started PAY ATTENTION again.
It is ALL ABOUT PAYING ATTENTION. It's pretty simple, really.
May 21, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree to a point, I was just pointing out how even on a superficial viewing of the facts the claim that the "gloves off" approach worked because there weren't anymore attacks is just absurd.
May 21, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Comparing terrorism under the Bush and Clinton administrations immediately points to Bush being far worse due to the number and severity of the attacks.
But you cannot just compare the two administrations records side-by-side. An inescapable fact is that the Clinton administration left Bush with very explicit warnings about terrorism in general and bin Laden in particular which were flat out ignored.
And then Bush responded to 9/11 by starting an illegal war in Afghanistan where the opportunity to achieve the primary objective (the capture of bin Laden) was inexplicably passed up.
The Bush crew then directly disregarded the verifiable intelligence that Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor ties to al Qaeda to start a second illegal war creating a hotbed of instability and terrorist propaganda.
Not insignificant is the general degradation of world security on Bush's watch. Attacks against civilian targets not just in the US, Afghanistan and Iraq but Spain, Indonesia and India. Fighting in Isreal, Lebanon, Gaza, Chechnya, Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe. The rise of Hamas, Hezbollah and the reemergence of the Taliban.
Time and again the Bush administration ignored good intel which was available, often in favor of demonstrably false intel. And in many cases both the collection of and response to the bad intel made the US and the world far less safe.
Cheney would have us believe that it is a choice between torture and war or further loss of human life. The reality couldn't be more different, Cheney's torture and wars are directly responsible for much of the violent loss of life we have seen in the past 8 years.
And we shouldn't forget that no additional terrorist attacks on US soil were necessary to destroy significant portions of two US cities with many avoidable human casualties.
Bush and Cheney improved our safety just like they improved our economy.
May 21, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agreed with you, but at the end you again accept their talking point "no additional terrorist attacks on US soil". US embassies attacked, US military assets attacked, domestic terrorist attack don't count? You've just repeated their talking point.
May 21, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read a little more closely. I said:
"no additional terrorist attacks on US soil were necessary..."
and not:
"no additional terrorist attacks on US soil happened"
I was pointing out that despite the previous administrations framing, there is more to keeping America "safe" than avoiding terrorist attacks. I was not conceding their talking point, quite to the contrary I was identifying a very fallacy in it.
May 21, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
umm, let's try "a very large fallacy"
May 21, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
Excuse me. If that's a valid argument, why did Bushco & Cheney drop the emphasis on Afghanistan to go after Iraq?
May 21, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You either agree that it is totally cool to commit atrocities without any proof that these atrocities actually prevent terrorism...
Or you are an America-hating pantywaist with his head crammed up his butthole that believes that if we just appease terrorists by not fracturing their joints in stress positions or putting bags of ice on their faces until they die than 9/11 will just happen again 10 times worse and won't we all be sorry.
Because we need to lose our souls in order to save them.
May 21, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
3 killed, 9 wounded today.
For zilch.
Time for you to leave the planet, dick.
May 21, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is there anyone who still takes Dick Cheney seriously?
May 21, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the entire MSM. Just watch.
May 21, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
obama,
the MSM needs to fill air time. Cheney is a great gift, they cover his speeches then talk aobut it for the next 3 days.
May 21, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
when cheney mentions that terrorists don't respect our more or less noble legal system, he speaks as if terrorists are a set number
he neglects to admit that our torture and detention policies create more terrorists
...and then he sure had some nerve to criticize the length of obama's speech when he went on and on hacking throughout
May 21, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what DICK. When you disagreed with the Clinton Administration, that meant you didn't take Al Qaeda seriously.
I don't take YOU seriously. You are a frightened little man.
May 21, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney broke the law period. It's not about if it worked Darth Vadar, it's all about the law!
Bush/Cheney paddled fear for eight years so they could continually break the law!
May 21, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
We know that Cheney is a liar. This is a fact. It's as true today as it was when he first took office. There's something I don't get when it comes to people's perception of the guy. When people think about Dick Cheney, they think he's evil. They think he was powerful, cold and calculating. And they make the mistake of equating all that with being intelligent. And that's the giant flaw. IMO, Cheney was likely the most incompetent VP in American history. He was wrong about everything. Not only was he wrong about everything, but he led this country down the worst possible path with every action, decision, and prediction he made.
And what about the decisions he didn't make? Like not taking any action whatsoever after receiving briefings as late as August 2001 about Bin Laden flying planes into buildings in the U.S.
worst terrorist attack on American soil, on his watch.
worst response to terrorist attack, on his watch.
worst foreign policy blunder in American history, on his watch.
worst response to natural disaster, on his watch.
worst financial crisis since depression, on his watch.
Why doesn't the historically prolific incompetence of Cheney supersede his perceived strength?
May 21, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Refresh my memory.
Isn't this one of the chuckleheads who, upon being told by outgoing NSC that al Qaeda would be their single biggest problem, promptly said "Whatever."
And then set about de-prioritizing al Qaeda, removing anti-terror personnel from the daily briefing roster, bailing out of the ABM Treaty, refreshing plans to invade Iraq, and ignoring intelligence about potential al Qaeda attacks on US soil?
Thought so.
Dick, if you and George had done your jobs, 9/11 would probably be nothing more than just another day, Dick.
May 21, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop paying attention to Dick.
It only encourages him.
Make the scary man go away.
May 21, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dicky, I took 9/11 more than seriously the day I saw three buildings demolished. I knew exactly what caused them to blow up and fall as they did...and since Giuliani could only order the solid evidence confiscated,leaving thousands of tons of pulverized concrete containing explosive and incendiary dabree to by analyzed, that was PROOF that it was an inside job. It made me sick!!!
"How dare you",Clinton reprimanded the person for posing the question...was it an inside job.
Baby Bush chided, anyone that even considered our government as being any part of it as being UnAmerican.
Bill O Riley and Hinnety sat on the edge of their seats just waiting for anyone to question the "official story".
To anyone who dares to think for themselves, it is truly ludicrous not to realize,and get as sick as I did (and still do), that their is an immoral evil in our federal government so strong that it fears itself; lest it would investigate...and prosecute its on horror.
May 26, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for the complex trail of the 19 terrorists (like the trail of Lee Oswald)prior to the incident...and the entire "terrorist investigation", it's just window-dressing.
May 26, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink