world

CIA head suggests Cheney almost wishing U.S. will be attacked

109 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

109 Comments
Login to comment

Panetta should be fired for making such a ridiculous remark. Cheney has said that he thinks Obama's policies are making the U.S. less safe because he's deeply worried about the situation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The laws of karma will result in another attack/s, but it is disgraceful to make political mileage from it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Panetta should be fired for making such a ridiculous remark. Cheney has said that he thinks Obama's policies are making the U.S. less safe because he's deeply worried about the situation.

I don't think Panetta should be fired for giving his personal opinion of a man whose political time is past. As the article says, Cheney's comments do "almost suggest" that he would be vindicated by an attack. In the absence of an attack, history will simply record him as a staggering lunatic, choked to the gills on sour grapes.

Also it would be good to remember that there were millions who criticized Bush's policies for keeping us safe and who suggested that those policies were more likely to produce attacks. I seem to recall that one of the objections that was raised against this point of view was that somehow these people weren't true blue Americans and that they were secretly hoping for America to be attacked again. Or is my memory faulty?

Sauce for the goose, I say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

""Almost suggests" that he is wishing" means he just about, almost, maybe, kind of, sort of, wishes, or so it seems. An irresponsible remark for a man in his position. Sure, he is entitled to his opinion, but being a public servant requires using judgment when making public statements. This lack of judgment begs to question his suitability for his current position as CIA director.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ummm...why is it irresponsible for him to suggest that Cheney is "almost suggesting" something? If anyone should sit down, shut up and stop rockin' the boat it is Cheney. Cheney's remarks are a breach of decorum and they should be aggressively countered.

Cheney is indulging in remarks of the sort that beg an attack on America as proof of accuracy. His behavior is mean and petty at best. If Cheney's message is an important one for Americans to hear, then someone else should be the messenger, someone with a political future.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tricky one this. Should he be fired or not. Irrespective of whether or not his observations regarding Mr Cheney are accurate, there is the issue of public servants crossing over the line between policy and political rhetoric.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“I think Dick Cheney’s judgment about how to secure America is faulty,” Biden said. “I think our judgment is correct.”

S'right folks. Take it from slugger, Joe "Big Lug" Biden, the country is in better hands. I mean, it's so safe that Joe recently disclosed whereabouts of the until now secret bunker those who hold his office are whisked to when attacks like 9-11 occur.

Nobody messes with Joe!

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05182009/news/nationalnews/biden_discloses_secret_vp_bunker_locatio_169883.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Speaker Pelosi recently told the country that the CIA lies to Congress all the time...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge at 07:24 AM JST - 15th June Panetta should be fired for making such a ridiculous remark. Cheney has said that he thinks Obama's policies are making the U.S. less safe because he's deeply worried about the situation.

Ok now why would our President need to fire Panetta? His critique of Cheney are on target. Cheney and the rest of the far right wingers are hoping that our President and his Administration fails.

Is tell me, if you want someone to fail, don't you want the worse to happen? I for one agree with our CIA chiefs assessment of the Cheney attacks.

So why again would you fire CIA chief Paneta, could it be that he has spoken against one of your far right's sacred cows?LOL

teleprompter at 09:11 AM JST - 15th June Speaker Pelosi recently told the country that the CIA lies to Congress all the time...

Now I know that Paneta is correct!LOL When you a far right winger trys to make your point by hugging Pelosi you must be desperate to make your point!LOL

Everyone who has half a brain knows that Pelosi was lying about what she knew. The easy way out for her was to run to the anti CIA far left crowd. That she did, and she may have saved her political career.

I for one believe that Paneta is correct and Cheney and the far right's comments are nearly traitorous if not traitorous.

Cheney and Pelosi need to go the way of the Dinosaur...Quickly with a big explosion....LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, the only thing Cheney is worried about is his leagacy, which is quickly shaping up to be one of the most collosal a**holes ever. As well as being the VP of perhaps the most disaterous administration ever. It must suck to see someone with competence replace you and expose your lack of vision. But don't feel TOO bad for Dick. He's made quite a nest egg for himself with all the war-profiteering from a useless war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Panetta is bang on target with his criticism of Cheney.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you consider Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., and their reactions to 911 where they downplayed Afghanistan while playing up Saddam (WMD, links with AQ) in order to settle old scores, you could argue that there is a ruthless streak in Cheney's personality that makes him want to achieve his own personal political agenda no matter the cost both in terms of the truth and body counts (how many dead in Iraq?).

Considering this, deep inside Cheney there might actually be some part of his being that desires an attack on the US, because it would justify his own views regarding issues of national security. On the other hand, without such justification Cheney would become more politically irrelevant than he already is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As with the lame Plame Name Game it is amusing, unbelievable almost, to watch the Left come out in full-throated defense of an agency that on other threads they insist is behind sham elections in Iran or "black ops" in the ME.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It might be inappropriate for Leon Panetta to talk against the bush.cheney administration. Panetta's not attacking the old administration, he's talking about the the rheteric that oozes from dick cheney's soup coolers.

dick cheney needs to shut his mouth. As long as he's running around sounding off at the mouth, he's fair game. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"As with the lame Plame Name Game it is amusing, unbelievable almost, to watch the Left come out in full-throated defense of an agency that on other threads they insist is behind sham elections in Iran or "black ops" in the ME."

For some reason I can't see the poster's name on the above post but I know it's got to be teleprompter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Plame Name Game?

This one is over my head? Could somebody possibily explain what this is or was?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mr. Cheney detailed point-by-point exactly where Obama is failing to protect America. When this county is again attacked, there will be only one person responsible: Barack Hussein Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Having black ops in quotations with regards to posts here at JT, I'm assuming that you can provide examples of those posts and that you aren't making things up, again, like the Minnesota liberal thingy you concocted the other day.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Which county would that be, Romeo? Seems you've got some pretty specific intelligence from somewhere.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RomeoRamenII

When this county is again attacked, there will be only one person responsible: Barack Hussein Obama.

george bush was responsible for the 9/11 attack. he and his administration allowed that attack.

This country is being attacked from with-in, by home grown terrorists. You know, right-wing extremist.

We really don't need dick cheney running around flapping his gums. We have enough problems that his boss's adminstration left behind. Like Iraq. The war that they lied about, fabricated evidence about and is earning a very good profit off of.

dich cheney opens his mouth, he's fair game. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dick Cheney and the GOP are one and the same - incredibly destructive, totally irrelevant and bad news for America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess it's time to recycle Cheney as "The Republican Villain Of The Week".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm no fan of Cheney, but the remarks seem irresponsible to me. I think the head of the CIA should be spending his time worrying about other things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not limited to Cheney. There is NO doubt in my mind that several die-hard GWB/Cheney fans would be more than happy to have another 9/11 just so that they could somehow feel justified in saying, "I told you so", and in order to drum up a little support for torture, holding people without trial, and perhaps even their own party a little.

It's a sick world we live in when people desire more pain and human suffering to further their political agendas, but it wouldn't be the first time said posters and people like Cheney would say 'the end justifies the means'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

george bush was responsible for the 9/11 attack. he and his administration allowed that attack." So, you hold no responsibility to other members of the US gov at that time, much less any responsibility to the Clinton admin, who on their watch, allowed Bin Laden to do what he wanted?

So, if something happens on O's watch, will you say the same thing?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dick Cheney is a patriot, but the state of his mind maybe in question when he makes bold statement the likes he has made in the last few months.

But what type of patriot is he really?

His claims are the claims of a man who has defied the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the past.

Before you all in the right start jumping threw hoops and calling for my head, let me be heard.

Dick Cheney, the man who has served our nation for many year as a bureaucrat. Dare I say he has never been a sailor, soldier or marine and has a belief that our founding fathers wanted our nation to kept secret from the people.

But that way of thinking is wrong.

This man has been involved with some of the darkest periods of our greats nations history.

I will name just one to make my point.....

Iran-Contra: A moment when the Executive branch subverted the Legislative branch (subverting our Constitution!) to support an anti communist group known as the Contras. Mr Cheney, then a Rep in Congress gushed over the tactics used to fight the Communist, and I quote;

But there were dissenters. A number of House Republicans on the committee cheered Colonel North on. One who led the way was Dick Cheney of Wyoming, who praised Colonel North as “the most effective and impressive witness certainly this committee has heard.”****

Hello Mr. Dick Cheney, the EXECUTIVE branch just committed treason and you agreed with it? WTFO????

I myself dislike Communism, but to agree with those who subverted our Great Constitution is in my mind a crime in itself.

I do not mind seeing someone burn our flag in protest, I will defend your right to do so. But to stump on our Constitution or Bill of Rights, NEVER!

I love our Constitution, I would lay down my life to defend it. Hell I was ready to do just that for over 12 years! But the flag is nothing without that Great Paper known as the Constitution!

Mr Cheney does love America, I will never fight that statement. But he has proven in the past that he does not hold the same ideals as our founding father.

For that I will fight him and his kind always!

He believes that the people must not know everything that is done in their name. He believes that the people could never stand to accept what is done in their name.

But who is he to judge what we will stand for and what we will not?

Mr Cheney has been a supporter of the things we as a people have never stood for. He believed that it is his way or the highway......But that is the thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. His way of thinking put in place some of the most disruptive periods in our great nations history.

For that he is no patriot.............He and his war hawks need to sit in a nice hot bath and take what is coming to them.....

RomeoRamenII at 10:49 AM JST - 15th June Mr. Cheney detailed point-by-point exactly where Obama is failing to protect America. When this county is again attacked, there will be only one person responsible: Barack Hussein Obama.

You all yell and scream about how our President is not protecting us all the while praying to your god that we do get hit so your point can be proven. Your far right claims to be "true patriots" but in fact your those that hate our nation. Too bad and truly too sad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hmmm. Judging from all the condemnation of Cheney it appears large swaths of the Left have abandoned the 9-11 Troofer Doofus movement. Maybe it took the election of their man and his turn at C-in-C. Whatever. I find myself relieved to see the debate moving in a somewhat more sensible direction at last.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mr Cheney does love America, I will never fight that statement. But he has proven in the past that he does not hold the same ideals as our founding father." And just how many of our current politicians do? I say 0!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney's trying to deflect his legacy. He's still resposible for Iraq, and he wants everyone to forget about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Personally, I like Cheney. However, I would say it a different way - "Don't scream until you are hurt" and then you can always say - "I told you so." Remember - I voted for Ron Paul !!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm not particularly surprised reading some of the responses here. Cheney is pretty much the boogie man to the left. Doesn't matter what he does or says, he is the epitome of evil for the left. JoeBiggs is particularly virulent on the subject. Iran/Contra affair wasn't really a matter of subverting the constitution or the bill of rights, I don't see how you read that at all. Breaking laws yes, but treason? Umm no, not even close.

Regarding what this article is about. Like others, I think the head of the CIA would be better served worrying about keeping the US safe, then what the former VP is saying. Though, considering the former VP has basically outlined why the US is less safe under Obama then it was under Bush, I guess I can see why he is concerned. Cause if he does screw up and allow a terrorist action on US soil, Cheney will have been proved right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dick Cheney is a leading expert on the topic of making America less safe. Too bad he didn't show the same patriotic zeal eight summers ago though, might not be one of the leaders-in-the-clubhouse now if he had. Score is still Bush-Cheney 1, everybody else 0.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GJDailleult

Score is still Bush-Cheney 1, everybody else 0.

I thought you said you were Canadian. Bush-Cheney "oppress" you, still?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hopefully any attack will be on cheney's house directly

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mr. Cheney detailed point-by-point exactly where Obama is failing to protect America.

What he detailed was his opinion concerning where Obama is failing to protect America. The only way that his opinion can be confirmed as accurate is if there is another attack and that attack can be attributed to the details he specified.

You do not hear President Bush speaking out on this situation. You do not hear that because second-guessing the new administration undermines it. Bush doesn't speak about this and neither should Cheney.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look, I don't know if Cheney is right or wrong, but what is wrong about criticizing the prez at this moment? Sure, Cheney may be wrong on how he is going about it, but why not listen, at the very least? Example: let's say you have a business and your worst sales person brings up a few issues, do you listen closely, or do you automatically brush him aside?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the end it is Panetta's job not to comment on what former Veeps say or do but to protect our country and its interests.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing is wrong with criticizing the President. Something is wrong with Cheney criticizing this administration. Cheney's time is over. That criticism should come from his mouthpiece, not from him.

Cheney is no longer America's salesman. Let's say you have a Ford dealership and a Toyota salesman comes into your business place and tries to talk your customers off your cars. But enough with analogies!

Of course you should listen when people say things you don't like. Cheney, however, is not saying anything new or original. He should sit down and let Rush take up the burden. I suspect more people listen to Rush anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He should sit down and let Rush take up the burden.

I hear he's slated for the next weeks, "Republican Villian of The Week' slot by the Dems. Cheney and him seem to be in a three week rotation with Palin lately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He should sit down and let Rush take up the burden

Gore spent 8 years traveling the globe and savaging Bush.

Cheney is a model of decorum in comparison.

People seem to have forgetten Cheney also speaks as a former Sec of Defense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney and him seem to be in a three week rotation with Palin lately.

These three are not simply Republicans. I don't think their agendas even have much to do with Republicanism. Rush is masterful in not engaging in dialogue with anyone his equal, Cheney is choking on his own bile, and Palin is searching for the lost limelight.

The core principles of Republicanism--small government, low taxation, freedom to engage in business and so on--are sound principles. And there are plenty of good Republicans. Of late, however, the Republican mistake has been to compensate for its minority status by coopting causes which are not essential to Republicanism and by choosing standard-bearers which seek to govern by fear. A free people will not long live in fear even if there is something to fear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the end it is Panetta's job not to comment on what former Veeps say or do but to protect our country and its interests.

No. It is not true that it is Panetta's job not to comment on what Cheney says. What is true is that it is not Panetta's job to comment on what Cheney says.

Moreover, endeavoring to protect our country and its interests is not mutually exclusive of commenting on Cheney's remarks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Play all the word games you want. Panetta is entrusted with the job of protecting America and its interests. He is responsible for carrying out some very clearly defined duties. Cheney is free, as all Americans are, to comment on that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Did Mr.Cheney ever serving in the military before ? Where does his expertise and knowledges of defense came from?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

telepromompter - "Cheney is free, as all Americans are, to comment on that."

I'm really not sure quote where you pulled that one out of.

Americans are less free to commment than they have ever been - they have spent 8 years under bush-cheney being bombarded with noises and threats about terror, having their phones tapped and e-mails read, and seeing the Constitution that bush and cheney pledged to honor and defend trmapled undefoot by both men, if you can call them that.

I'm wondering what your Canadian friends and family have to say about this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gore spent 8 years traveling the globe and savaging Bush.

I don't think this is really true. In the first place, to dispel the rhetoric, I don't think Gore "savaged" Bush. In the second place, Gore was an advocate for a single cause which at its heart had nothing to do with exclusively American policy or exclusively American interests. Most of his criticisms were of Bush science policies which allowed complete ignorance of the issue for which Gore was advocating.

Cheney is accomplishing nothing but adding rancor to the political process. It hardly matters that he was a former Secretary of Defense. He is the former VP and he really needs to get someone else to carry the torch of growling fear--unless no serious Republican voice is willing to take up that message.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Americans are less free to commment than they have ever been - they have spent 8 years under bush-cheney being bombarded with noises and threats about terror, having their phones tapped and e-mails read, and seeing the Constitution that bush and cheney pledged to honor and defend trmapled undefoot by both men, if you can call them that.

I defy you to provide even one example where a private American citizen had their civil rights unjustly curtailed.

Youtube, blogs, twitter, facebook - there has been an explosion of new media these last 8 years - in America at any rate. Obviously, participatory democracy is dead wherever you come from.

I'm proud - and amused - that American politics allows you the opportunity to work out your fascination with (American) democracy and economics, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dragonczar - "Did Mr.Cheney ever serving in the military before?

No, of course not. Cheney pushed hard to get - how many - was it 5 deferrments? - while the real men were away fighting in Vietnam.

Cheney is the ultimate gutless chickenhawk, which is why - naturally - he is the posterboy of the Extreme Right.

"Where does his expertise and knowledges of defense came from?"

Considering, like almost all his supporters on JapanToday, cheney has zero combat experience, it's pretty amazing he was chosen as SecDef under Reagan.

"When Republicans have no ideas and no leadership, they resort to personal attacks and bank on failure,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Van Hollen said. “It’s no wonder that recent polling shows that one-third of Republicans hold an unfavorable view of their own party.”

Not much else needs to be said. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Play all the word games you want.

That was not a word game. That was a fundamental semantic distinction. And it is a distinction which you have not addressed other than by accusing your interlocutor of "playing games".

Panetta, among others, is charged with the job of protecting America and its interests. Perhaps that is exactly what he is doing in suggesting that Cheney's only vindication would be another attack on America. If "Cheney is free, as are all other Americans, to comment", then so is Panetta.

Cheney is crossing a line in his criticism. If Panetta is crossing one in his response, that should be a good thing among the feisty crowd, not a bad thing. Imagine if Bin Laden crossed a line but we insisted on observing niceties.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter - "I defy you to provide even one example where a private American citizen had their civil rights unjustly curtailed."

You think the bush administration would publicize who they have been listening to and wire tapping? Wow, that shows how little you know about the country south of your beloved home of Canada.

Considering it took a federal court judge to declare bush's wiretapping program ILLEGAL, obtaining that information would be about as simple as finding a 9-11 terrorist's charred passport under millions of tonnes of smouldering WTC rubble. Hey! - the bush administration actually did that, so maybe my case isn't as watertight as I thought. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm honestly loving this - watching the Extreme Right on Japan Today - the ones who have never actually fought in a battle anywhere - struggling so hard to defend a former veep who has also never seen a shot fired in anger.

It's like watching someone trying to nail jelly to a wall. :-)

As Sezwho said, Cheney is crossing the line on this one. He has had his chance in power and clearly failed. He is now trying to influence his legacy after the fact while at the same time doing his utmost to prevent the national conversation from moving on to why he needs to be tried at the Hague and thrown behind bars for good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney is accomplishing nothing but adding rancor to the political process.

Disagree......The Media is the one that keeps giving the "Former Veep" a forum. Also, don't fool yourself, the Media and the Dems are more than happy to keep trotting him out, they are still in last years campaign mode and the more they keep the Bush administration in the spotlight, the more they can avoid a critical press on their current proposals. They will milk a "Republican Villian of The Week' for all it is worth. It does drown out the voice of what the Republican party really does stand for as an alternative to the current administrations proposals.

I'll give you credit, you spelled out what the party is really all about pretty well in your previous post, but the message won't be heard for a long while as long as the media can milk all it can from the Bush administration and give Obama a pass in the meantime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It wouldn't surprise me that cheney hopes for another attack on US soil to prove his point....his radical supporters on JT have been hoping for one since Mr Obama trounced the GOP.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well I think Carter was the one who broke with tradition and started criticizing Bush when he was in office, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't think anyone "wants" an attack on the US. To say so mostly provides evidence of how someone making the accusation shouldn't be taken seriously.

SushiSake: Considering it took a federal court judge to declare bush's wiretapping program ILLEGAL

You mean there's a system of checks and balances? Can you tell us more about this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib - sure -

www.teleclick.ca/2006/08/wiretapping-program-declared-illegal-by-us-district-judge/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Former Vice President Dick Cheney should leave the stage, his moment is gone. At the geostrategic level, he can be understood, but it reveals a glaring US weakness as he still pursues his policies. It is unwise and unless he is willing to show the cards he holds very tightly, it is time to let go. World opinion about the US is under "suspicion".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib - "I don't think anyone "wants" an attack on the US."

I really don't think that's a very credible statement to make at present.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney and the GOP are now fighting amongst themselves to see who can become completely irrelevant the quickest.

Here's a candidate for second place, only a slivered nose hair behind cheney -

"South Carolina GOP activist and former chairman of the state elections commission Rusty DePass has apologized for saying a gorilla that escaped from a zoo was an "ancestor" of Michelle Obama."

www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/14/rusty-depass-south-caroli_n_215439.html

Cheney and idiots like Rush Limpbough and this Rusty DePass clown illustrate beautifully why the GOP are their own worst enemies. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Media is the one that keeps giving the "Former Veep" a forum.

Agreed. Bush is gone and the sycophants around Obama desperately need to keep the hate at a certain pitch. Narcissists like Obama need to have a foil of some sort to keep the party faithful united in hatred. It seems to just go in cycles: Limbaugh - Cheney - Palin - Limbaugh -Cheney - Palin...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

susisake:

As Sezwho said, Cheney is crossing the line on this one. He has had his chance in power and clearly failed.

Failed? Cheney served in the Nixon, Ford, Bush Sr and Bush Jr admins. He was House Minority Whip and oversaw Operation desert Storm as Sec of Defense.He was Chief of Staff under Ford and VP for the 2-term Bush Jr .

Seriously, as much as you obsess about America you really should get a few facts before posting.

...he needs to be tried at the Hague and thrown behind bars for good.

The Hague is a joke that only Euros and Canadians could take seriously.

Cheney doesn't fear the toothless, feckless Euros. He doesn't even fear Obama. If he did he'd be in Dubai, where you lot all predicted he'd hightail it to on or before Jan 21 of this year.Didn't happen.

"Mr 8 Percent" har har har.

And now more "popular" than Speaker Pelosi.

Gallup:

According to a May 29-31 Gallup Poll, 37% of Americans have a favorable view of Cheney and 34% have a favorable view of [Speaker of the House Nancy] Pelosi. Both Cheney and Pelosi are viewed unfavorably by at least half of Americans.

Likin' them apples?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Polls, old friend?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushi: I don't know who you are shouting at, but I was in Somalia and the first Persian Gulf.. Ok, also bear in mind that Cheney had a higher approval rating than did congress then and now. I am not supporting the him, but I am countering your dems do no wrong approach. Its really scary. As for liberties that were taken away, I still don't know what were taken from me. As for wire tapping, I never really cared about it that much since I knew that I wasn't doing anything wrong. I don't know people got hyped over the initail part of it. of course listening to your sex calls was a bit crazy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake: Superlib - sure - www.teleclick.ca/2006/08/wiretapping-program-declared-illegal-by-us-district-judge/

I was told that Bush shredded the Constitution. Your claim is that there is a system in place to check the legality of his actions and in certain circumstances even overturn them? Impossible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind,

Sure, the media gives Cheney a forum. I'm sure it would give Bush one, too. However, Cheney could decline to seek the forum and could decline to avail himself of it when offered.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

I'm sure we could find cases where former presidents have criticized sitting presidents. And then we could make distinctions and argue those for what they are worth.

Bush did not immediately follow Carter. That seems like a significant distinction to me. Cheney, on the other hand, has been out of office less than 5 months and is playing doomsayer to policies which, for the most part, were included in Obama's mandate.

Cheney looks petty and peevish. And while it is not Panetta's job to call him on that, he has at least as much right to his opinion as Cheney does and somebody needs to tell Cheney to take a long vacation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter, my friend, you are in rare form on this one.

Al Gore "savaged" bush for 8 straight years!!!

SAVAGED, you say?!?!?

This coming from a guy who thinks waterboarding is just having some water poured over your face. Apparently, that's nothing compared to what Al Gore has done to poor dick cheney.

SAVAGED!

That victim card is getting awfully dog-eared, awfully quick.

However, I'm going to use the word "savage" as often as I can today, in tribute to such a fine post.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter: "Gallup: According to a May 29-31 Gallup Poll, 37% of Americans have a favorable view of Cheney and 34% have a favorable view of [Speaker of the House Nancy] Pelosi. Both Cheney and Pelosi are viewed unfavorably by at least half of Americans. Likin' them apples?"

Coming from a guy who said himself that 'Americans don't worry about polls', you don't have much credibility on them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith, here's what the teleprompter wrote:

" "Polls" are important in Europe, where they are one of many devices used to tell the sheeple what to think, but in America they mean little."

That was obviously when he didn't like the results of the poll, un-like today's flip-flop. Heh, it was actually on the subject of the cheney itself, and the ex-VP's impressive 8% approval rating.

Boy do these guys love to back a loser....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: Thanks. I took a quick look at his back log to quote the comment in question, but after looking through hundreds of posts full of blather I got bored of trying to distinguish one message from the next.

You caught my sarcasm, though, clearly... that he is constantly against polls and says only Europeans (and Canadians) believe them, unless they somehow rise slightly in his favour. Cheney is still hated, regardless of how much more of a celebrity his stupidity has made him, and if you ask teleprompter what Obama's ratings are at at the moment he'll be back to the 'polls don't matter'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter at 06:15 PM JST - 15th June Failed? Cheney served in the Nixon, Ford, Bush Sr and Bush Jr admins. He was House Minority Whip and oversaw Operation desert Storm as Sec of Defense.He was Chief of Staff under Ford and VP for the 2-term Bush Jr . Seriously, as much as you obsess about America you really should get a few facts before posting.

Psssssst teleprompter, do not want to kick your soap box from under you. But, Nixon resigned in disgrace because of his use of dirty tricks.

Ford was one of the worst Presidents in history and the people wanted him out.

Bush Sr was so bad that he was the only President in history to lose an election after winning a war.

Bush Jr has gone down in history as the worst President since Hoover.

I see how his views were shaped sooooooo dare I say, well..LOL

Looks like you forgot a few things about his distinguished career. Let us count the ways;

While Deputy Assistant to President Ford Cheney wanted to use the US Department of Justice to go after the reporter Seymour Hersh. Why you may ask, well Mr Hersh is an investigative journalist who digs into stories till he get the truth and it appears that Cheney hates that word...Truth.

He was campaign manager for President Ford's 1976 presidential campaign. You all know how well that turned out don't you?LOL Cheney was one hell of a campaign manager....

As a congressman Cheney voted against the establishment of making Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's birthday a national holiday.

Voted against the creation of the Department of Education, we all know how much he wants to make sure all kids get a good education.

Cheney voted against overriding Reagan's veto when Congress tried to pass economic sanctions on South Africa. Hm wonder why....

Cheney also served as ranking minority member of the Congressional committee investigating the Iran-Contra affair. He just loved the way the far right subverted the constitution. If ya do not believe me, look it up.....

As Sec of Defense he began to down size our Military and to remove many projects.

Cheney persuaded Saudi Arabia to allow Military bases in the nation. Which later became a rallying cry for the terrorist. For some reason many Muslims did not like Western troops near their most sacred site. Wonder why that would make them angry?

CEO of Halliburton....

Did I forget anything? Hope not......

teleprompter at 03:18 PM JST - 15th June In the end it is Panetta's job not to comment on what former Veeps say or do but to protect our country and its interests.

Hm interesting I looked up the job of the Director of the CIA and I did not find anything that mentioned not going after Cheney.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I took a quick look at his back log to quote the comment in question, but after looking through hundreds of posts full of blather I got bored of trying to distinguish one message from the next."

You're a braver man than I - having been reviled by simply the first page of mutterings I looked in my own posting history. I just can't believe how much content the teleprompter spews out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush Jr has gone down in history as the worst President since Hoover.

What an intersting viewpoint. Complete nonsense of course, but interesting. I would rate Carter as being the worst President in the 20th century, far outstripping Bush in terms of how ineffective he was, and how he mismanaged the country. Clinton was better then Bush 2, but not by a lot, considering he complete screwup with NK, and how when it comes down to it, a lot of 9-11 has to be laid at his door. Bush 1, was a decent president who made a few mistakes. Nixon was a good president who did something stupid, and then was even more stupid to try to cover it up. Ford wasn't a bad president, he made a few errors in judgement, but overall was ok. Better then Bush 2 at least, and far better then the incompetent idiot who replaced him.

Cheney also served as ranking minority member of the Congressional committee investigating the Iran-Contra affair. He just loved the way the far right subverted the constitution. If ya do not believe me, look it up.....

Oh, I have, and I'll say it again. They didn't subvert the constitution. No one was a traitor. Sorry, I know you like to believe your little fantasy, but its simply not true. They broke some laws yes, but treason or trashing the constitution, sorry, no.

One final thing to comment on, then I have to go for the day...

You do not hear President Bush speaking out on this situation. You do not hear that because second-guessing the new administration undermines it. Bush doesn't speak about this and neither should Cheney.

It may surprise you to know, but it is customary for former presidents not to criticize sitting presidents. Carter and Clinton both broke with this custom, but nevertheless, it is the custom. Thats why you didn't see Bush 1 out there constantly criticizing Clinton, and why you won't see Bush talking about Obama. Because despite his flaws and his mistakes, Bush 2, really does believe in the Presidency. Even when he was in office, and Carter was out there being an idiot, like he always is, Bush 2, didn't respond to the attacks, just pretended they didn't exist.

There is no custom regarding the VP however, which is why Gore had no problem screaming at Bush, why Cheney has no problem being outspoken against Obama. It is rare however, for the head of the CIA to criticize a former VP. I honestly can't remember ever hearing something like this happening before.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey JoeBigs, Hoover wasn't that bad a president; he did what was commonly acceptable at the time. He made a good scapegoat though....

Cheney and JWB were probably as bad as they come, IMHO. I would not put it past Cheney to be churlish enough to want an attack just to prove that he was right. Dick ought to take a lesson from his boss: sit down and shut up!

Or was Cheney the boss and GWB the lackey? Either way the VPs should be no more outspoken than their bosses unless, perhaps, they aspire to the presidency. In that regard Cheney doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. I hope!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When Obama nominated Panetta to be head of the CIA, politicians and reporters alike pointed out that he had no previous intelligence experience. America now has a retread political hack from the Clinton administration in a job where we need a seasoned professional within the intelligence community.

What Mr. Cheney has said can be seen as "wishing that this country would be attacked again" only by someone looking to protect himself from the consequences of his inexperience.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think we are a bit more vulnerable with Obama at the helm than having a real man at the helm. An apologist just makes us look weak. We are hated no matter what and if they could get their paws on Wonderboy O. then they'd do to him as they'd do to Bush or any other American. He is not your saviour.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bushlover,

We are hated no matter what and if they could get their paws on Wonderboy O. then they'd do to him as they'd do to bush or any other American.

Do you think it would be as bad as the SAVAGE treatment afforded dick cheney by those black ops lefties who are terrified of sarah palin?

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka13

...those black ops lefties who are terrified of sarah palin?

You mean like Letterman? : )

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When Obama nominated Panetta to be head of the CIA, politicians and reporters alike pointed out that he had no previous intelligence experience. America now has a retread political hack from the Clinton administration in a job where we need a seasoned professional within the intelligence community.

Even if this were true, it would be irrelevant with respect to Panetta's comment. There is no prohibition against the CIA director making public comments with respect to security. Many have.

However, it is not even necessarily true. Perhaps what the CIA needs is a fresh look. And a "seasoned professional within the intelligence community" may be exactly the wrong place to look for that.

What Mr. Cheney has said can be seen as "wishing that this country would be attacked again" only by someone looking to protect himself from the consequences of his inexperience.

This is false as stated here. It would be just as true to say that Cheney's statements can be seen as "not wishing that this country would be attacked again" only by someone who lacks experience in assessing people and their motivations. Anyone should be able to see his statement as a wish--whether it is or not.

Those who have suggested that it is impossible for the US to win in Iraq or Afghanistan have been treated to suggestions that they wish America to fail. This is a slipper that fits either foot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka, It'd make waterboarding look like a sport in comparison matey. And the big O wouldn't be coming home or have the option of appeal without a head.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think we on the left should lighten up on Cheney. After all he has diminished capacity. He has no soul.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney's response.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/politicizing_intelligence_2.asp

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is false as stated here. It would be just as true to say that Cheney's statements can be seen as "not wishing that this country would be attacked again" only by someone who lacks experience in assessing people and their motivations. Anyone should be able to see his statement as a wish--whether it is or not.

No, I think its more a statement as warning, not as a wish. Even the most ardent haters will admit the man served his country. He is a patriot, even if you think he is wrong about everything. He has devoted his life in service of his country. I don't believe for a second that he wants to see it attacked. I find it much more plausible, that his words are of warning, and Panettas of trying to cover his butt so if something does happen, he can try to blame it on someone else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know he wants it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Panetta said of Cheney’s remarks: “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.”

If torture prosecutions of US personnel go forward, "gallows politics" will be an even more apt term, and it's why Cheney hopes for an attack to keep him from the gallows.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

America is definately less safe under Obama/Biden. Obama`s recent speeches in the Middle East were disgraceful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course Cheney wants the USA to be attacked again, like it was when he was suppose to be protecting the country along with the boy blunderer bush on 9-11. They were too busy preparing to invade Iraq to care about OBL, who is still free. Yet another massive failure of the bush losers.

If the USA gets attacked again then cheney can say he was not the only failure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know the more time passes the more I really believe that Cheney wants us to pay for his mistakes. I really do think that he wants the U.S. to get hit. He may not want a big hit, but he wants a breech so he can yell that he was right.

Yet he was probably the worst VP in the last 20 years.....Well him and Quayle are neck and neck there. But I think Quayle did nothing to hurt our nation while Cheney did many thing to hurt us.

You know what is real sad about all this? Well, let me tell you, Cheney has said many things and has defended many of his tactics during his time in office.

He claimed that torture was a good thing and it kept us safe here at home. Hell, he probably has a do-it-yourself water boarding kit in the basement dungeon of one of his homes. Maybe the one he takes his "special friends" hunting.

I am still wondering who did invite Guckert to spend quality time at the White House. You know the sleep overs....LOL

But I digress, the more time passes the more and more we find out how wrong he was. We also find out how wasteful the administration he was in was.

Now it has come to light the two men the CIA was paying $1000.00, yes one-thousand DOLLARS per day, to train their interrogators how to conduct proper interrogations had never done one themselves.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7474412&page=1

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=7847478&page=2

It just amazes me how badly run the Bush administration was. They were giving away money to the worst qualified persons. They did not care how they spent it as long as they spent it.

Cheney has the nerve to claim that he and his friends in the W administration kept us safe. The more things come to light the worse he looks.

Funny how the only people that believed him were the ones on the far right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Joe, Nessie, come on. I find it much more likely he doesn't want it to be attacked, which is why he comes forward and says, hey look at what you're doing wrong, why not fix it. If he really wanted America to be attacked, he keep his mouth shut, rather then pointing out the obvious flaws of the new administration.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir,

Let's say for a moment that what you say is true and that dick cheney is just trying to point out what you and he believe to be obvious flaws.

By pointing them out in the media, isn't he alerting our enemies to perceived weaknesses that they may exploit?

If dick really thought there was an issue, wouldn't he be best served by going to the administration themselves, rather than the media?

I would think a former Sec. Def who feels it is important for Americans to be wire-tapped and for people to be tortured to keep us safe would also know a little "somethin' somethin'" about the concept of "loose lips sink ships."

I find it most likely that this was pure political pandering on dick's part.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CIA Director Leon Panetta says former Vice President Dick Cheney’s criticism of the Obama administration’s approach to terrorism almost suggests “he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point.”

Yeah, this gives us a nod to the meaning of "making the federal case out of it."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"If dick really thought there was an issue, wouldn't he be best served by going to the administration themselves, rather than the media?"

No, Obama needs to be embarrassed into taking the right action.

By not capitalizing the "d" in Dick, and referring to the former vice president just by his first name, Taka313 just makes himself look childish.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge at 07:38 AM JST - 17th June No, Obama needs to be embarrassed into taking the right action.

Sarge I have a question, what exactly is President Obama doing wrong. Could you help us all out and explain some of the flaws......If you need help look to the next quote and response.

But I would love to hear from your own words what our President is doing wrong. Hm I wonder if you would feel the same if McCain had won?LOL

Sarge at 07:38 AM JST - 17th June "If dick really thought there was an issue, wouldn't he be best served by going to the administration themselves, rather than the media?" No, Obama needs to be embarrassed into taking the right action.

You do not suspect for a moment that Cheney would love to say,"I told you so?" you do not think that for a moment?

By the term,"right action" you mean the far right response to terrorism?

You mean

Torturing people in our name?

Wire tapping Americans?

Lying to Congress when you need to get something passed?

Arresting anyone that is Muslim?

By passing the Bill of Rights by the stroke of a pen (executive order)?

Hiring untrained people to do interrogations of prisoners who know nothing.

These are just a few of the marvels of the Bush administration. Are any of these what you want the Obama administration to do?

By not capitalizing the "d" in Dick, and referring to the former vice president just by his first name, Taka313 just makes himself look childish.

Hm Sarge, I have a question, it is a tinny tiney question about the respect you hold for ole dick.

So your you find it offensive when someone mocks a former V.P., right? So please do tell how you feel about former V.P. Al Gore?LOL Do you hold him in the same standard or not? If you do respect the title of V.P. so much please why not tell us how you respect Al Gore also.LOL

Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind!!!LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I notice that no one is really interested in the follow up to all the manufactured hysteria.

"The CIA, through spokesman Paul Gimigliano, walked back a controversial statement Panetta recently made to The New Yorker while arguing that his quote was misinterpreted in the first place.

"The director does not believe the former Vice President wants an attack. He did not say that," Gimigliano said. "He was simply expressing his profound disagreement with the assertion that President Obama's security policies have made our country less safe. Nor did he question anyone's motives."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney would have been right at home in the early days of witch hunts and mob lynchings. Too bad he is an emotional wart, rather than an intellectual.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Too bad he is an emotional wart"

Emotional wart? Heh heh...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney is a sociopath who still today does not accept his culpability in the damage he has done to America. To Bush's credit, he seems to understand where he has been in error and ostensibly in private feels pain for it. Meanwhile though, Cheney thinks he can still rewrite reality long after his lies and distortions have come to light. He disingenuously proports to be on the side of those who serve America i.e. the troops and the CIA yet he doesn't hesitate to throw them under a bus. Cheney the chicken hawk needs to stop perfidiously hiding behind the excuse of national security and be exposed for the sick minded and even treasonous individual that he is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The media and lefty posters do a great job of stuffing words into someone else's mouth. As usual they prove to be the losers they are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Cheney is a sociopath"

Heh heh...

"Cheney the chickenhawk"

Heh heh...

"sick minded and even treasonous individual that he is"

Heh heh...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney is a sociopath who still today does not accept his culpability in the damage he has done to America.

Cheney and his wife donate millions of dollars annually to American and foreign charities. Doesn't quite sound like a sociopath to me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe Cheney really is a sociopath. I mean, he served eight years as vice president, and could now be living a quiet retired life playing golf and what not, but no, he speaks out against what he believes are wrong policies set by the Obama administration.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He was treasonous, history has shown us that, but what do you want from a country that let Nixon walk free?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Cheney and his wife donate millions of dollars annually to American and foreign charities."

Heh, it can't be guilt. Must be a tax write off.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this is the risk you run when you put a politician in charge of the cia.

at least cheney doesn't run away from his beliefs. why can't leon stick up for what he said?

hint: look at the first sentence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I knew I hated this guy for a long list of reasons. But this is just one more reason to dispise Cheney.

Cheney is the following.

A war criminal for his violations of the Geneva convention and of international standards on torture, imprisonment and due process. A traitor: For lying to congress, misleading the American public and for serving objectives beneficial to his own economic interests instead of keeping his oath of office. A criminal: guilty of corruption and of robbing the American people through support of his friend's companies and those he has a stake in. A fascist: for his belief that the ends justify the means when interpreting the moral and ethical behavior of the US. We cannot stand for liberty and peace if we torture and wrongfully imprison people. A violator of Civil Liberties: From his backing of the Patriot Act to other violations of American civil liberties under the guise of anti-terrorism.

He should be locked up in jail for the rest of his life along with is puppet George W.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it's funny how little has actually changed under obama. of course we don't hear so much hysterical rhetoric as we used to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dick Cheney does want to see the U.S. suffer another major terrorist attack. It is the only way for Cheney, and his former boss, George W. Bush, to at least partially escape the condemnation of all reasonable historians for their eight years of utterly mismanaging the domestic and foreign policies of the U.S.

Bush and Cheney want the history of September 11, 2001 to January 20, 2009 to be written from the standpoint that they had no choice but to take all the measures they did for nearly eight years to protect the U.S. and its interests worldwide.

If the economy went belly-up in the meantime, for example, too bad so sad, as George and Dick were out to save the world from the evildoers.

Unfortunately, many Americans belatedly came to the correct view that the choices of Bush and Cheney, from the economy to the Iraq War were totally wrong, but George and Dick will stop at nothing while trying to get a favorable write-up in the annals of history.

As with the economy and the Iraq War, though, they will ultimately fail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We had eight years of "dangerous politics" under Bush and Cheney, much to the detriment of the United States of America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Forget about Cheney, don't even worry about other countries at this point, worry about what is happening to your country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites