« What Kind of Bird is This? | Main | Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ »

Embracing Cheney

From David Limbaugh's column on the dueling national security speeches yesterday from Cheney and Obama:

Never has a sitting president been as obsessed with scapegoating the policies of the preceding administration as Barack Obama.

David Limbaugh makes the point that many yesterday missed.

How convenient, also, for Democrats to overlook that Cheney didn't start any of this. He isn't going about the country leveling unprovoked attacks against the administration. He is responding to Democratic attacks and thuggish threats to criminalize Bush administration policies.

...He's reacting to the far more current but equally vicious (though subtler) attacks against the Bush administration by President Barack Obama himself.

That guy at MSNBC who did an entire segment consisting of "tea bagging" references recommends David Corn's predictable write up of the speeches. Corn and Shuster are amazed that Republicans are embracing Cheney. They just don't get it. What is more amazing to me is that they choose to embrace the slick politician with the high approval ratings who raises his chin to the audience and talks about how moral he is and how superior his approach is to that of those who kept us safe for eight years. Those of us concerned about national security, who are living down here in the real world, are not looking at approval ratings. We are looking for the truth about the threats we face and we are looking for people who will act to keep us safe, without consideration of what it will do to their approval ratings.

Cheney is responding to the attacks of someone who evidently believes the only way he can distinguish himself on the issue of national security is to attack his predecessor. Obama flails about, alternating between attacking the methods of the former administration and embracing those same methods. If those in the media were being honest and impartial about it, they would have to acknowledge how small and (as David Limbaugh described it) obsessive it makes the current president appear.

Here is what it comes down to -- Cheney is talking about the enemies we face and they are American-hating jihadists determined to destroy our way of life. Obama is talking about the enemy he faces -- a previous administration that was successful in keeping the country safe beyond what any of us could have imagined on September 12, 2001. And those on the left are surprised those of us concerned about national security would embrace Cheney?


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/35767.

Comments (19)

Now the Democrats are the p... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Now the Democrats are the party of No!

Cheney says "Release the memos that show the effectiveness of EIT"
Democrats say, "NO!"

Republicans say, "Investigate if the CIA lied to Pelosi"
Democrats say "NO!"

"Obama flails about, alt... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"Obama flails about, alternating between attacking the methods of the former administration and embracing those same methods."

Of course he's flailing. He's never run into any situation, handled anything where his decisions actually mattered as far as results went, and he's never actually been RESPONSIBLE for those decisions AND the results that came from them. He's always been able to talk his way out of anything before - why not now?

So - "I will close GITMO" morphs into "We're leaving it open until we come up with an alternative" - and that alternative is quietly shelved.

"I will not condone torture" will morph into "I've determined EIT procedures are not torture, and will be used as needed."

"I will balance the budget" morphs into "I'm spending shitloads". (Our economic status DOES bear on our national security - there's nothing more expensive than the world's second-best military because it costs you EVERYTHING.

"I will provide government sponsored health care" will likely morph into "We're sending out government first-aid kits... and your share of the bill is $600 each, or 3 for $1500. Bulk discounts are available." This will be for the same kit you can get at WalMart for $20, with a government label.

"I will defend this country" will morph into "Well, we're always in the wrong so we've got to suck it up."

"I will defend our allies" will morph into "They must have done something to piss someone off - they're on their own."

Of course, it'll all be dressed up in flowery rhetoric to disguise the essential meaning - but the meaning will be there, and nations around the world will be able to percieve it... while the folks who want desperately to believe Obama's a genius in every field the likes of which hasn't been seen since the good ol' days of Mao will cheer heartily for his success.

I "eagerly" await the first... (Below threshold)

I "eagerly" await the first speech Obama EVER gives where he doesn't have a single "It's not my fault that..." or "...the PREVIOUS administration..." or "I INHERITED..."

Of course, I don't expect such a speech in the next 30 years of the Age of Obama...but I "eagerly" await it!

p.s. I'm not suggesting that Obama's reign be limited to 30 years

Lorie's last paragraph sums... (Below threshold)
davidt:

Lorie's last paragraph sums it up perfectly.

For a guy who touts 'transp... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

For a guy who touts 'transparency and accountability', we've seen damned little of it. Let's face it, Barry talks a good game, but so far, that's all it's been. At least he's consistent with his past performance.

Short, sweet dismantling of... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Short, sweet dismantling of Cheney's AEI speech by the good folks at McClatchey.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3237981

In response, the gifted lawyers over at Powerline blog are outraged and claim the McClatchy story is nothing but a kleenex box full of lies, lies, lies, and more lies and lies, followed by the announcement that Powerline-lawyer-person is tired...can't answer now...too sleepy...sleepy...zzzzzz.

Read the *whole* thing.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023618.php

For a guy who tout... (Below threshold)
Sabba Hillel:
For a guy who touts 'transparency and accountability', we've seen damned little of it. Let's face it, Barry talks a good game, but so far, that's all it's been. At least he's consistent with his past performance.

5. Posted by GarandFan | May 22, 2009 11:51 AM

This would be a good caption for the caption contest.

Powerline has it right. The... (Below threshold)

Powerline has it right. The "reporters" of that McClatchy piece basically went to Kos and scribbled down the discredited DNC talking points.

Kind of like what bryanD did a few days ago when he claimed that Bush "ignored the memo that warned about 9/11". That's a lie that was debunked years ago, but it doesn't keep the moonbat left and tinfoil hat conspirazoids from repeating it.

Democrats care only about t... (Below threshold)
davidt:

Democrats care only about the Democrats. Thus the Republicans are the mortal enemy, the ONLY enemy. They don't care about the real enemies of the country.

"The "reporters" of that Mc... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"The "reporters" of that McClatchy piece basically went to Kos and scribbled down the discredited DNC talking points."-o

McClatchey (formerly Knight-Ridder) was the shining light amongst the major media syndicates in refusing to be spoon-fed the fugazy rationale regarding the pending invasion of Iraq. McClatchey's relatively independent viewpoint comes from their print subscriber base being mainly outside the NYC-DC axis of pantloads.

As for Kos, Markos M. is a CIA asset. At least he formally applied, was turned down, etc. Like I said "asset". Plausible deniability plus the contract is cheaper. He's an establishment character in a Halloween mask.

"Kind of like what bryanD did a few days ago when he claimed that Bush "ignored the memo that warned about 9/11"."-o

A few days ago? You need to lay off the dill pickles before bedtime. But in that vein, google "visa express" program. I double dog dare you. Triple dog, even.

Democrats care only abou... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Democrats care only about the Democrats.

True enough. But, that shoe fits equally as well on Republican feet. But, I'm surprised you guys aren't throwing a party over here since you have exactly what you wanted. I mean, with all of Obama's recent reversals, you now have a president just like Bush.

And c'mon, bryanD. If you were consistent with your principles, your angst would be directed at Obama, not Cheney. I know, I know. It's confusing to be a liberal these days. But, look at it this way: It's not half as confusing as being a neo-con. They have to actually start liking Obama in order to remain true to their principles.

Of course, that's assuming that both groups have principles. Which they don't. So, never mind.

Clay -If Obama rev... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Clay -

If Obama reverses his 'stimulus' spending, and all his deficit spending plans, THEN I'll feel a trifle more like celebrating.

As it is? Gee. We're being hung with a new rope. What reason could we POSSIBLY have for complaint?

Well, golly, JLawson. What ... (Below threshold) Stupid hyperlinks.... (Below threshold)
Clay:
Short, sweet disma... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Short, sweet dismantling of Cheney's AEI speech by the good folks at McClatchey.

Here's a statement from McClatchey's article. In a statement April 21 , however, Blair said the information "was valuable in some instances" but that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

So if "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means" then no one can say that EIT's weren't necessary.

Then Blair says this "The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world", which I find absurd given we stealthily lob hellfire missiles into Pakistani homes where women and children are present. So who are these people who are offended by EIT's used on just three of the very masterminds of terror, but who are ok with the atrocity of stealthily lob hellfire missiles into Pakistani homes where women and children are present? Maybe someone should ask Blair that question.

Blair then says "the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us". Cheney says the information gained from the use of EIT's saved thousands of American lives, so what damage does Blair think is worth more that thousands of American lives? Maybe someone should ask Blair that question.

From McClatchey's article A top-secret 2004 CIA inspector general's investigation found no conclusive proof that information gained from aggressive interrogations helped thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to one of four top-secret Bush-era memos that the Justice Department released last month.

So if it's ok to release such memos why won't Obama release the memos Cheney is asking for? The White House admitted that Obama has the authority to release those memos, so I can only conclude that they would undermine Obama's case.

Here's the problem Obama has if the memos Cheney is asking for do show that American lives were saved because of information gained from EIT's. First the myth that EIT's don't work is put to rest. Then some reporter will ask Obama if he would use EIT's if he felt that it would produce information that could save American lives. He'll try to spin away, but eventually he has to answer yes or no. If no, then in Obama's view American lives are not worth as much as the image he has with the Europeans. If yes, then why the hell is Obama criticizing Bush for doing the same thing he would do in a similar situation?

I figure the memos Cheney is asking for are now the most highly guarded and classified memos the nation has as their release could greatly damage Obama.

Even if they are not released they show that Obama's promise about having a transparent administration is a lie.

Mac, I've noticed yo... (Below threshold)

Mac,
I've noticed you've commented several times
using the following:


Then Blair says this "The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world", which I find absurd given we stealthily lob hellfire missiles into Pakistani homes where women and children are present. So who are these people who are offended by EIT's used on just three of the very masterminds of terror, but who are ok with the atrocity of stealthily lob hellfire missiles into Pakistani homes where women and children are present?

And none of those on the left who comment
at Wizbang will touch your questions with a
10 foot pole.
Maybe it's because when Obama does the
same thing it's okay.

Well, I was wrong. It wasn'... (Below threshold)

Well, I was wrong. It wasn't a few days ago when bryanD repeated the irresponsible and baseless accusation that President Bush ignored "warnings" about 9/11, it was actually about a month ago. How time flies. Here's the quote from bryanD:

Bush was warned of the 9/11 attacks weeks before the event in an intelligence document passed to him through Condoleeza Rice. NORAD was not alerted, of course, Bush being Bush.

It was comment #73 in this thread. The McClatchy piece is at about the same level.

maggie,I'm sure pe... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

maggie,

I'm sure people are getting bored with my repeating the same argument. However, I think it exposes a significant flaw in the left's contrived outrage over EITs. A few days after I first made that argument Bill O'Reilly used nearly the same argument on his program to confront one of the resident lefties, who had no answer other than to try to spin out of the spot the argument put him in. I'm not saying O'Reilly or his staff read what I wrote, but I was a bit shocked to see Bill making nearly the same argument on-air.

What's interesting is that in the left's obsession with attacking Bush they have suffered significant political damage, yet they persist as if unable to control their actions. BDS is a real disease from which the left may suffer permanent damage.

Thank You Lorie for making ... (Below threshold)
MichaelC:

Thank You Lorie for making this post. Clearly a type of statement that the trolls must rush to denigrate but all of their squealing is the sound of those who know they must make some noise in hope of obscuring the truth. Shameless little critter, eh.

And Mac, it would not surprise me at all that O'Reilly searches through blogs hoping to find some intelligent commentary that he can commandeer. I'm sure that many commentators do likewise when their brains seize up and they find themselves in need of material solidly grounded in the truth.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy