'it's almost as if he were wishing" for an attack is more than a little bit different from 'wanting an attack."

Then again, McCain has always been weak on nuance.

They're probably too busy trying to get Letterman fired.

Cheney knows that the Bush policies didn't keep us safe.

I saw that old goat McCain on Today this am and was wondering why they had to open his crypt and let him out for a sound bite. Mr foriengn policy hisself Shite ? Sunni ? waaht? there's a difference. I especcially like the part where Mat Lauer asks him directly do you approve of torture yes or no and he say ....and I am not making this up .."It's time to move on" How someone who was tortured can not say It was wrong then It is wrong now, shows him as just a pandering old politico even now when he has nothing to lose.

Steve, don't be naive. Of course Panetta knew he'd have to walk that comment back. He made it strategically. This is the poli communications equivalent of a prosecutor asking a question he's not supposed to knowing full well that the jury can never truly "strike that statement" from their memories.

Kudos to Leon for kicking them hard and then washing his hands of it.

"But what's especially interesting is how little effort Republicans have made to raise a fuss about Panetta's criticism. It was easy to imagine a full-court press by GOP lawmakers and Fox News, lashing out at the CIA director -- but the tirade, at least thus far, is nowhere in sight."

Steve, at 8:40 in the Morning it is probably a tick to early to draw that optimistic a conclusion whether or not the Republicans will try to make hay with this.

And our friends at Fox will still have all day to get into gear.

I'd be surprised if McCain and Cheney end up being the only ones to come out with a response.

I too disagree that Panetta was saying Cheney sincerely hopes for an attack. He was exaggerating the point to draw attention to the intensity of Cheney's jingoist politicking.

One can hope that Panetta's candor will cause Cheney to back off a bit. One can hope.

god damn dick cheney's shit-filled soul to hell.

Of course Cheney got it wrong. The important thing is not that they continue the policies, the important thing is that they keep up safe, while upholding American values, which Cheney did not.

Remember when OJ Simpson put up reward money to find the *real* killer? Cheney's using the same tactic.

"How dare they imply I'm a killer!! I love my country!"

He'll look purty in orange, don't you think?

Maybe Republicans don't see an upside to a fight with the head of the CIA over whether Dick Cheney seems to want terrorists to hit the United States?

Maybe it's because they all want terrorists to hit the United States so they can blame Obama.

Like other commenters, I think it's a bit early to rule out a wingnut hissy fit. If it comes, and it probably will, most of the MSM (not just FOX) will be properly outraged and Panetta will do the usual grovel. Of course, wingnuts (not just the Rush/Beck pack of loons, but elected officials) still have the power, without consequence or pushback from the MSM, to declare their opponents to be traitors, objective supporters of terrorism, and hoping for the death of American troops. Once again, our liberal media in action.

David Letterman is a puss, and Leon Panetta is a puss.

C'MON guys! You don't see Rush Limbaugh or John McCain apologizing for attacking Chelsea Clinton, or Cheney apologizing for slandering Obama!!

Seriously. We need some balls-growing fertilizer here.

"The important thing is whether or not the Obama administration will continue the policies that have kept us safe for the last eight years."

Bill Clinton's policies kept us safe for eight years. Then Bush and Cheney got into office, trashed those policies, and within a few months we were attacked. I'd say Dick's not quite qualified to speak on this subject.....

I'd say Dick's not quite qualified to speak on this subject.....

That's not exactly headline news, but the fact is that he constantly gets a platform. Something that gets discussed at length on this an many other liberal blogs. I fail to understand that.

Steve, the R's are not making a fuss because, believe it or not, they have respect for Leon Panetta. Cheney, in a televised interview shortly after the selection of Panetta for CIA, expressed warm praise for Panetta. Panetta has a solid reputation on both sides of the aisle from his days in Congress and the Clinton administration.

No one seems able to recall the PNAC treatise in the late-90s that spoke of the need for another Pearl Harbor to galvanize our minds on SW Asian threats. Dick Cheney put his big ol' John Hancock on that report. He saw the political upside of an attack on US soil before and you can bet he sees it now. Destruction of people, places, and things for his own immediate personal, political gain is in his blood. And there walks another one of God's creations.

The GOP isn't making a big deal out of this because the more they make an issue of it, the longer the media focus is on Dick Cheney. Even they understand that's not a good thing for them.

If anyone disbelieves for a moment that Dick Cheney and his ilk are positively salivating for an attack on US soil in a vain and weak minded attempt to speciously claim ideological victory, I suggest you pick up a copy of Naomi Klein's book Shock Doctrine.

My guess is that the noise machine hasn't fired up because their cover-up is dependent on Panetta fighting document request from Congress and the Courts. So Cheney and VRC don't want to antagonize the man. Cheney's praise of Panetta which m mentioned is consistent with this interpretation of the mild reaction to Panetta nailing Cheney.

If you know that raising even a token protest will likely result (as it did) in a retraction, why make more fuss? They know that Panetta is undergoing institutional capture by the CIA and is busily helping them cover themselves on what they did over the last eight years, so a gentle nudge is all that's required to quiet him down.

"The important thing is whether or not the Obama administration will continue the policies that have kept us safe for the last eight years."

Yes, all the way back to June 16, 2001.

Maybe a lot of Republicans aren't complaining about Panetta's remarks because they realize it's not an entirely illogical or unfair thing to say; after all, how can Cheney's comments about Obama's policies making America "less safe" be vindicated in any way outside the context of another terrorist attack in the U.S.?