Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 30, 2009

DICK THE COWARD.... It was only a matter of time before Dick Cheney decided to trash the president again.

"As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won't be at war."

Let's review a few pesky details. First, it was Cheney's administration that released some of the alleged terrorists who plotted the attack into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" in Saudi Arabia, only to see them become terrorist leaders in Yemen. It was also Cheney's administration that gave Abdulmutallab a visa to enter the United States in the first place.

Second, let's compare some "low-key responses." President Obama addressed a failed terrorist attack three days after it occurred. Eight years ago, when a terrorist tried to blow up an airplane under nearly identical circumstances, then-President Bush waited six days before making brief, cursory public remarks. Five days after the attempted terrorist attack, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refused substantive comment altogether, telling reporters, "That's a matter that's in the hands of the law enforcement people." A White House spokesperson would only say at the time that officials were "continuing to monitor events."

Democrats, at the time, didn't launch an assault against the Bush administration, and we didn't see Al Gore condemning the White House. It simply didn't occur to Democrats in 2001 to use the attempted mass murder of hundreds of Americans to undermine the presidency.

Eight years later, Dick Cheney believes his principal responsibility is to destroy President Obama -- the man Americans chose to clean up the messes Cheney left as a parting gift after eight years of abject failure.

This recent piece from James Fallows continues to ring true: "The former vice president, Dick Cheney, has brought dishonor to himself, his office, and his country. I am not aware of a case of a former President or Vice President behaving as despicably as Cheney has done in the ten months since leaving power.... Cheney has acted as if utterly unconcerned with the welfare of his country, its armed forces, or the people now trying to make difficult decisions. He has put narrow score-settling interest far, far above national interest."

Dick Cheney is a coward and a disgrace.

Steve Benen 8:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)

Bookmark and Share

It is time for Dick the coward (5 times exempted from service) to go back to his underground bunker.

Posted by: JS on December 30, 2009 at 8:27 AM | PERMALINK

What I find especially striking about Cheney is how little one heard from him while VP vs how much one hears from him as ex-VP.

Posted by: buckets on December 30, 2009 at 8:32 AM | PERMALINK

Here's the worst part about Dick making his dick comments - his vile daughter will be on EVERY Sunday gab-fest for the next month. And I'm not talking about the cute lesbian one. I'm talking about the one who makes Winston Churchill look pretty...

Posted by: c u n d gulag on December 30, 2009 at 8:34 AM | PERMALINK

It was only a matter of time before Dick Cheney...

And what would Brian Boitano Cheney do? Raise the color alert to orange? Start a third war in Afghanistan? Or just start waterboarding the crotchfire nimrod so he can't talk anymore?

Posted by: Danp on December 30, 2009 at 8:34 AM | PERMALINK

Mike Allen is the most despicable "journalist" in Washington. He's nothing but Dick Cheney's sock puppet.

Posted by: AR on December 30, 2009 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK

Al Qaeda are presumably smart enough to sense that our public discourse is so idiotic, our country so full of demagogues like Cheney, and our politics so fragile that a successful aircraft attack could well upend us, returning to power their natural long-term allies-The Republicans. These attacks, even when the fail, pay dividends for them.

Posted by: bob h on December 30, 2009 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

I come to bury Obama , not to praise him ;
The evil that men do lives after them ,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with Obama ...
The noble Cheeney Hath told you Obama was ambitious :

If it were so, it was a grievous fault ,
And grievously hath Obama answered it ...
Here , under leave of Cheeney and the rest,
(For Cheeney is an honourable man ;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come I to speak in Obama's funeral ...
He was my friend, faithful and just to me :
But Cheeney says he was ambitious ;
And Cheeney is an honourable man….
He hath brought many captives home to Wyoming ,
etc ,etc , etc ...

Posted by: FRP on December 30, 2009 at 8:43 AM | PERMALINK

Dick Cheney is a coward and a disgrace.

You left out mass murderer, torturer, liar, fearmonger, and friend shooter. What a jackass. Nauseating...

Posted by: stevio on December 30, 2009 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

To sum it up "Dick's a dick"

Posted by: madstork123 on December 30, 2009 at 8:57 AM | PERMALINK

By all means let's kill the messenger. Say what you will about Cheney. The fact remains that Obama ISN'T demonstrating strong leadership on terrorism and, now that there has been a big near-miss on what appears to be an AQ-sponsored job, the country is starting to take notice of that lack of leadership.

Attacking Cheney may feel good, but it doesn't address the issue. If Obama wants to make Cheney look ridiculous, he's gotta prove him wrong by showing a little fire in his belly on the terrorism issue. Anything less just validates what Cheney is saying.

Posted by: CB on December 30, 2009 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK

"...his vile daughter will be on EVERY Sunday gab-fest for the next month. And I'm not talking about the cute lesbian one... "

Nothing - NOTHING - created from the union of a cholesterol-clogged Dick Cheney sperm and a withered Lynne Cheney oocyte, thenceforth vomited from the pasty-white loins of Lynne, could ever be considered "cute".

Posted by: garnash on December 30, 2009 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINK

Dick cheney first needs to explain why and how 9/11 happened on his watch. Then he's free to comment on this adminsitration.

Posted by: SaintZak on December 30, 2009 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

No, CB, Cheney is not just a messenger. From the second he left office, he's taken every opportunity to trash the President. And he hasn't been right once.

It may feel good to crow about Obama's "near-miss" (I know people like you have been drooling for another terrorist attack on Obama's America) but Obama is striking the right tone here. Rather than Obama needing to get fire in its belly, I think it's Americans who need to stop being babies and expecting their government to keep them 100% safe at all times.

What would you have Obama do? What would constitute "fire in the belly"? Raise the color alert to red? Don a flight suit and defiantly challenge the terrorists to "bring it on?" Bomb Yemen?

"Fire in his belly." What bullshit.

Posted by: garnash on December 30, 2009 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK

Richard Armitage, on June 15, 2009:

"...I completely disagree with former Vice President Cheney. I think he should, in your word 'pipe down'. [applause] I think it's unseemly. [applause] I think it's unseemly and very much admire the way President Bush has, has said he owes President Obama his silence. And that's right. Beyond that, as a citizen, obviously Mr. Cheney has a right to his point of view, but I think the, the burden of being a former vice president trumps it. And it makes him look so mean spirited now as it, it's, I guess Leon Panetta, uh, the CIA, said it makes Mr. Cheney look as if he'd almost want a terrorist attack to kind of show up Mr. Obama. And look, I'm an out of work Republican right now, but I don't want our president to fail, I'll tell you that. And it seems Mr. Cheney's kind of seen to put a lean in that direction. I don't like it..."


Posted by: Michael Bersin on December 30, 2009 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINK

Poor little crybabies. Can't deal with criticism and cry.

Posted by: bandit on December 30, 2009 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

dickie the draft dodger needs to be tried as a war criminal along with his boss the wannabee dictator!

Posted by: LTC on December 30, 2009 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINK

You say, "Dick Cheney is a coward and a disgrace." You are being too kind ...

Posted by: BigRenman on December 30, 2009 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

I hope Obama's declassification center, formed to allow the public to see official records - allows the public to see all of Cheney's records - that should give the old coward something else to think about, rather than to try smearing the one who is clearing up the Bush/Cheney mess.

Posted by: js on December 30, 2009 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

It appears bandit is a Dick supporter.

Posted by: Pug on December 30, 2009 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

Hey Cheney! STFU!

Now that I have that off my chest, Cheney would do well to remember that the TSA and Intelligence procedures that failed were formulated under his watch.

The Yemeni AQ members who were once in Gitmo and were involved in this attempt were released under his watch.

The failure to succeed after 8 years in the GWOT was under his watch.

So please Dick, get lost will ya?

Posted by: The Other Ed on December 30, 2009 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

Dick Cheney is repugnant as a human being! He shows no sensible judgment. He has dishonored most of what he's touched. He needs to STFU or open himself up to more scorn, ridicule, and possible future indictments! -Kevo

Posted by: kevo on December 30, 2009 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

If Obama wants to make Cheney look ridiculous, he's gotta prove him wrong by showing a little fire in his belly on the terrorism issue. Anything less just validates what Cheney is saying.

Way to be a tool you simple fuck stick. When people talk about whats wrong with this world, they are talking about jackasses like you who perptuate every lame CW talking point with nary a thought of the bigger picture in their stupid fucking heads.

Oh, you are one of those dicks that the AEI is paying to troll liberal web sites and gets paid for pushing agitprop?

Never mind then.

Posted by: SnarkyShark on December 30, 2009 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney loves to get his war on...never mind that it was only while he was safely tucked away in his "undisclosed location" that he pursued war. IIRC, when he was of an age, he fought endlessly to keep his lily white ass out of war. Now that he no longer has to rely on the deferment option for the armed services, he is all about bombing, killing, and torturing prisoners.

And the wingers who lap up his every word see no conflict in any of it.

Posted by: jcricket on December 30, 2009 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

Steve writes:"It simply didn't occur to Democrats. . ."

That is the problem in a nutshell. Dems are in the faculty lounge, drinking sherry and talking nuance and strategy. And the Reps are in the frat house, tapping kegs, and planning panty raids.

Posted by: DAY on December 30, 2009 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

God damn Dick Cheney's shit-filled soul to hell

Posted by: krowe on December 30, 2009 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

CB, what has you and Cheney so angry is that Obama has been addressing terrorism as a criminal rather than a military matter. All evidence to the contrary, Cheney continues to be convinced that the only way to put out a fire is with a hammer. And if it doesn't work, that doesn't matter; what matters is striking the right "tone" of armchair machismo.

Let me recommend an important book to you: "The Authoritarians," by Bob Altemeyer.


It's available for free on line because the author thinks it's important for people to know about this. The people he's analyzing aren't would-be dictators, but the kind of people who follow and enable them because they long for strong father figures to protect them and tell them what to do. Of particular interest is the experiment described in Chapter 2, in which two groups of people were invited to play a sort of game of "Risk." The non-authoritarian group soon began using negotiation and international organizations to solve problems, but the group of authoritarian personalities insisted on using force, even when the "game" ended in nuclear war and total destruction of the earth, not just once but a couple of times. That's what would result from adopting Dick Cheney's "philosophy" of "leadership," and that's why he's enraged to see that the authoritarian followers who supported his evil have been out-voted.

Posted by: T-Rex on December 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

Neil?? Neil?? Ready in 3...2...1...

Posted by: ML on December 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

At each step -- from the invasion of Iraq, to the unsupervised surveillance of American citizens, to the torture of prisoners of war -- the methods by which the Bush administration prosecuted their "war on terror" was controversial and contentious. The question should now be fairly asked whether these methods were chosen for precisely that reason, and whether we are seeing a repeat of that cynical motivation in Republican criticisms of Obama's handling of terrorism today.

There were many reasons to challenge the legality, constitutionality and effectiveness of the measures George W. Bush chose to confront Islamic extremism. But there is no doubt that the very extremism of these methods, by provoking outrage among liberal and Democratic critics, fed the powerful right wing narrative that Republicans have used to win elections for a generation -- That Republicans are tough and Democrats are weak. How often, for example, have you heard Cheney use just that word -- weak -- to criticise the president.

Republicans say America should elect Republicans because it needs leaders who “understand that we are fighting a war.” Yet, for these very same Republicans “terrorism” is no longer a “real war” that demands accurate threat assessments, a sophisticated understanding of our adversaries and their aims and capabilities, or realistic strategies for defeating well-defined dangers. Instead, this conflict has become a metaphor, and the war on terror a proxy, for Republican vigor and Democratic feebleness.

That this cynical misuse of the war on terror for political gain may ultimately weaken America’s ability to combat genuine terrorism is, from the GOP’s partisan point of view, just another casualty of war.

When he resigned in disgust after just six months as head of President Bush’s faith-based initiative, John Dilulio delivered what may become history’s final word on the Bush Presidency when he said there was “no precedent in the modern White House for the complete lack of a policy apparatus” that prevailed within the Bush Administration.

“Everything, and I mean everything [is] being run by the political arm,” said Dilulio. “It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. [They] consistently talked and acted as if the height of political sophistication consisted in reducing every issue to its simplest black-and-white terms for public consumption, then steering legislative initiatives or policy proposals as far right as possible.” Few, he said, even cared about policy substance and analysis; and what was “breathtaking,” said Dilulio, was the “near-instant shifts from discussing any actual policy pros and cons to discussing political communications, media strategy, et cetera."

Subordinating sound policy to political profit may be harmless when applied to something as essentially innocuous as federal aid to church-basement day care centers. But this indulgence has dangerous life and death consequences when it overtakes the conduct of a great power in time of war.

Let’s look at specifics:

The Department of Homeland Security. The creation of a central DHS enjoyed broad bi-partisan support and was, in fact, first proposed by Democrats over the objections of the Bush administration. Not until there was overwhelming public support for the new department did the White House do an about face and pretend it took the lead on the measure all along. Yet, bi-partisan support for the measure made it worthless as a Republican wedge issue in 2002. And so the poison pill of union protection for federal workers had to be induced to allow the GOP to campaign on Republican stoutness and Democratic perfidy.

The War in Afghanistan. Enjoying broad bi-partisan support, this war was the legitimate and logical response to the terrorist attacks in 2001 and did real damage to the actual enemy that attacked us on 9/11. But consensus between Republicans and Democrats made the war in Afghanistan useless as an issue that could draw distinctions between the two parties on national security.

The War in Iraq. The bitter debate the invasion has provoked on whether Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, or distraction from it, has obvious political advantages for the hard-line Right that defines patriotism as support for the war and the administration that fights it.

Torture. Experts are dubious about the effectiveness of using torture (in violation of long-standing American traditions and international conventions) as an effective means for extracting reliable intelligence from terrorists, enemy combatants or those innocent detainees captured indiscriminately on the battlefield. The military high command is also strongly opposed because they fear retribution against our own troops should they be captured by the enemy. But there is no denying that torture, as a tough-on-terror response is a useful weapon for bludgeoning Democrats as weak on defense.

Domestic Surveillance. This is an entirely artificial controversy since no mainstream figure disputes the right of the government to use electronic surveillance as a legitimate law enforcement or counter-terrorism tool. The Bush administration could easily have avoided the political firestorm that it knew its secret spying program would ignite by getting warrants through the FISA courts specifically created by Congress to balance legitimate law enforcement with the protection of American civil liberties. Yet, by going behind the back of Congress and the courts, the Bush administration and the Radical Right was able to frame principled outrage over this secret and dangerous program as just another example of Democratic support for criminal rights over victim rights or national security.

The same dynamic exists with the detention of individuals in this country and its confinement of suspected terrorists in secret camps overseas. Likewise, the special tribunals that Bush tried to establish in the face of opposition from civil libertarians, the military’s judge advocate general corps, and the Supreme Court created another exploitable wedge issue for an administration that seemed intent to craft each part of its war-fighting strategy with an eye toward how it will play in the next election.

At some point the American people need to ask themselves: “Just whose side was George W. Bush and the Republican Party on, anyway?” Did they care more about the future security of The United States or the future political prospects of the Republican Party?

How could George W. Bush expect to defeat an enemy he could not even name? Are was he trying to win a war or an election?

Shoving together al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Sunni insurgents, Shia insurgents, Iran, Syria, and God knows who else, under the all-embracing umbrella of “terrorists who hate freedom,” may have helped Bush distract attention from the chaos he had unleashed in Iraq. It might even have created the myth that we are fighting a monolithic foe on par with the Nazis or Soviets of the past.

But the logic of a lunatic formulation that lumps together such widely disparate groups, with such different motivations and capabilities, is that we must fight them all as one enemy, with identical weapons and strategies, and with the same grim kill-or-be-killed mentality that leads to real - not metaphorical - world wars.

You decide who is really giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Dragging along a divided and dispirited country, its proudest traditions and most cherished ideals held up to the world for mockery, is no way to win a war. Especially a war, as Bush liked to say, that was largely a war of ideas.

Posted by: Ted Frier on December 30, 2009 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

God damn Dick Cheney's shit-filled soul to hell.

Posted by: neill on December 30, 2009 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

"Nothing - NOTHING - created from the union of a cholesterol-clogged Dick Cheney sperm and a withered Lynne Cheney oocyte, thenceforth vomited from the pasty-white loins of Lynne, could ever be considered "cute"."

C'mon garnash, why don't you tell us how you really feel?

Posted by: Marko on December 30, 2009 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

"Dick Cheney is a coward and a disgrace." If he were only that. He is also a war criminal and should be hung from the nearest lamppost.

Posted by: a on December 30, 2009 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

Posted this earlier on the Peter King posting, but it applies even more to Cheney.

From a WWII OSS psychological profile of Hitler, courtesy of Wikipedia on "The Big Lie."

"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

I'm not saying Cheney is another Hitler, but he sure uses the same propaganda approach that Hitler and Goebbels used.

Posted by: Mamzic on December 30, 2009 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

I realize Dick Cheney never served in the military, but still, you'd think he'd be familiar with the penalties for being disloyal during wartime...

He's also spreading enemy propaganda, trying to undermine the war effort. The truth is that so far this month in the Yemeni theater, we've had two successful bombing raids, taking out multiple combatants, and that's just the ones we know about. I'm sure Cheney wouldn't want the President to reveal details about any covert ops also underway, right?

They had one assault which failed, due to their own incompetence and the energized and educated opposition of a free citizenry.

I say we're handling this war just fine.

Posted by: biggerbox on December 30, 2009 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

What really bothers me, and what I don't think people are paying enough attention is how Dick Cheney's mistruths are validated by the wide coverage and unearned respect they receive
There a WHOLE LOT of people who think "He's the former Vice-President. He can't be lying."
It surely does keep things stirred up to the advantage of the most far-right GOP.

It's really creepy how he keeps repeating the Big Lies and no one really calls him on it.
On talk shows, these things are referred to as "controversies" and are discussed as if the lies are just another valid opinion.

Has this happened before in the past? I know Senator McCarthy and the HUAC got away with their version of reality back in the 50's, but was there ever a former vp or prez telling such lies?

Posted by: rcm on December 30, 2009 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Hmm.....very curious. So Cheney, who received 52 separate warnings between April - Sept 2001 from the FAA about al Qaeda hijacking airplanes and did nothing. Now he wants to weigh in on terrorism.

Hey Dick, why are we even talking about al Qaeda 8 years after 9/11 and getting bin Laden "dead or alive" ?

Posted by: BurghMan on December 30, 2009 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Seems Bob Segal knows some things that have not been determined yet. For example : people that know the recent bomber said he became radicalized due to Israel's bombing of Gaza.

Posted by: BurghMan on December 30, 2009 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Ahh..Loadmaster and the tired "republicans are tough" line and dems are weak.

Tired song.

Face it, republican administrations have been bad for America

Mountains of debt; lying us into war; allowing the biggest terror incident on our shores; etc.

Don't bother us with any of the usual rhetoric.

Neither Bush or Cheney had any interest in WINNING either "war" but left a bigtime mess in their wake.

Posted by: BurghMan on December 30, 2009 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

First, I agree that Cheney is a coward but for different reasons. He was a slimey draft dodger just like Clinton. Second, I agree with what he's saying and its about time you syncophants posing as journalists stop pissing down your legs like the Omega males and celebrity struck females are and start being objective and critical. That's your job. Third, I suppose none of you have ever heard of Jimmy Carter? He's been shooting his mouth off for what 30 years? Or have all of you whiners missed that.

Posted by: Mike-USN-ret on December 30, 2009 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. The ignorance on display here is astounding. Pres. Bush and VP Cheney kept us safe for 7 years and all you ingrates can do is tell yourselves lies about "torture." Truly shocking how sick the left has become.

Posted by: Michelle on December 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Funny that wingnuts come here and talk about dems whining. Wingnuts have built a radio empire and and an entire network FoxNews for 24/7 whining.

Except wingnuts wouldn't know truth if it slapped them in the face.

Love the comment above : Bush/Cheney kept us safe for 7 years.

Of course that was after the worst terror attack in our history and after Bush/Cheney ignored 52 FAA warnings from April - Sept 2001 about al Qaeda hijacking airplanes.

Posted by: BurghMan on December 30, 2009 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

Don't tell me we're going to let Cheney and his running dogs revive the politics of fear. There is nothing to fear but fear itself. The trivial incident a hand was but one more anguished protest against the defilement and plunder or the Islamic world. Obviously, we need to redouble our attempts at outreach, and making amends for past misconduct.

Posted by: Flint on December 30, 2009 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

The Odds of Airborne Terror


Posted by: BurghMan on December 30, 2009 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Report Says FAA Got 52 Warnings Before 9/11

The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months before Sept. 11, 2001, that al Qaeda hoped to attack airlines, according to a previously undisclosed report by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks.

The report detailed 52 such warnings to FAA leaders between April 1 and Sept. 10, 2001, about the terrorist organization and its leader, Osama bin Laden.


Posted by: BurghMan on December 30, 2009 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

Funny that the 1993 WTC bombing that happened 38 days after Clinto took the White House was his fault and not GHW Bush's

Also, funny that nothing happened for well over 8 years after that.

Posted by: BurghMan on December 30, 2009 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Dick Cheney is a "chicken hawk," defined by author Glenn Greenwald in his book, "Great American Hypocrites," as "advocating a war from afar as a sign of personal courage and strength." He should stay out of the press unless he has something really constructive to say. He was a disgraceful Vice President and he continues to be disgraceful critic of our current President. He IS a coward.

Posted by: George Fulmore on December 30, 2009 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Ahh.......yes, Tom and the bravado from wingnuts.

The same wingnuts mind you that were willing and did give up rights under the constitution to daddy Bush/Cheney.

The same wingnuts that "just want to be safe" and whine incessantly after each failed attack.

That's the funny part when people like Tom and others come here with their false bravado.

I'd take the first 10 dems on the Street in a fight over the first 10 wingnuts any day. We don;t need to wear this macho BS on our sleeve like Tom above and macho guys like Lindsey Graham

Posted by: BurghMan on December 30, 2009 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Seems "jcrue" above is struggling a little with facts about the 52 warnings about al Qaeda and comes back with baseless nonsense.

How about the August PDB memo direct to Bush amidst the 52 warnings that summer title "bin Laden determined to Strike the US"

Of course Bush ended up talking 850 vacation days during his two terms

Posted by: BurghMan on December 30, 2009 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

The content of Dick Cheney's commentary is spot on, but it's the wrong person making the statements. For reasons abundantly cited, Cheney comes across as a blatant hypocrite. He breaks the unwritten rule of Elder Statesmanship by blasting the sitting president, and doubles down because of his own administrative ineptitude. He's purely political on issues where he would himself argue that politics should end at the water's edge. But, taken at face value, his comments are spot on! Just a reminder that with all this hope and change, nothing's really changed for the good, just that things are perpetually getting worse.

Posted by: seismedia on December 30, 2009 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

"Nothing - NOTHING - created from the union of a cholesterol-clogged Dick Cheney sperm and a withered Lynne Cheney oocyte, thenceforth vomited from the pasty-white loins of Lynne, could ever be considered "cute"."

You lefties are quite simply insane. I suppose this is the bottom-feeding left wing democrat version of "civil discourse'

Posted by: Bob Orr on December 30, 2009 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

"Seems "jcrue" above is struggling a little with facts about the 52 warnings about al Qaeda and comes back with baseless nonsense.

How about the August PDB memo direct to Bush amidst the 52 warnings that summer title "bin Laden determined to Strike the US"

Of course Bush ended up talking 850 vacation days during his two terms"


And I noticed, you didn't answer a single question of mine. Nice.

oooooh "the 52 warnings"

were they the only 52 warnings? were they 52 warnings of many more? did each of the 52 reach Bush's desk? and were these the only 52 warnings any president had received about AQ or islamic terrorists.

I'm sorry you can't. It would have been enlightening I'm sure.

And then to deflect to how many days Bush spent on vacation?

Then how about we also talk about rounds of golf too, sparky?

Must be a slow day on Gore's intertubes for the kids out there....

Posted by: jcrue on December 30, 2009 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

"Democrats, at the time, didn't launch an assault against the Bush administration, and we didn't see Al Gore condemning the White House. It simply didn't occur to Democrats in 2001 to use the attempted mass murder of hundreds of Americans to undermine the presidency."

You're kidding, right? Ok. Maybe they waited three months, but then the spent the next seven years ... well make that eight, now -- doing exactly that.

If "Cheney's Administration" released "alleged" terrorists, it would have been to the applause of Democrats and their leftist base were they not constantly and actively engaged in undermining the presidency -- and it was likely a few bones tossed to the screaming, screeching throngs of lawsuit charged, headline raging leftists who considered his every breath an assault on Planet Earth.

I see a lot of name calling, ugly insults hurled at Cheney and his wife and kids, and a lot of the now famous "Shut Uppery" libs are famous for here in the comments.


So hey, now we know. Obama Knew! We were warned, and he did NOTHING!!! When can we expect the left to start calling for his resignation or impeachment? Ooops. Sorry. Deomcrat in the White House. Different rules apply.

Posted by: philmon on December 30, 2009 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

Dick Cheney is the most evil person to ever hold a high political position in the USA

Posted by: Mark Ferguson on December 30, 2009 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

Any substantive debate going on here other than ponting fingers? Since when is one man's blunder the defense for another man's mistake?

Cheney: "Obama did something worng."

Benen: "Well so did Bush. So there." (Sticks tongue out).

Either this type of response is ok or it's not. It can't be forgivable for one and condemnable for the other. It's a double standard for both Cheney and Benen.

Posted by: akarmenia1 on December 30, 2009 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are three of the best allies of the Democrats and enemies of any possible Republican resurgence. Well described as wing nuts.

Posted by: Ben on December 30, 2009 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Mr. Cheney does appear to believe "his principal responsibility is to destroy President Obama," and I find his efforts to that effect rather distasteful.

Posted by: alfred on December 30, 2009 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

Sweet Jesus!!!
Ignorant, retarded, right-wing cockroaches (repetative, no?) crawling all over the place. I'm gone for what, an hour to eat dinner, and this is what I come back to?
I guess this proves that the truth hurts, huh?
Hey 'moran's,' YOUR beloved President sucked. So did the douchebag with the hand up his puppet's ass. That'd be the VP you defend here.
Look around. If you had more than a single digit IQ, you'd realize that this country is a mess. And it wasn't in the last, oh, say, 11 months under Barry. It took years to create this clusterfuck. I'd start with Nixon and work my way up from there. But, you probably don't know history, which is why we've been doomed to repeat the same tax-cutting, war-starting strategy for 40 years.
Drone on, 'moran's.' Your hate fuels me.
I know what'll really piss you off: Happy Holiday's, and Happy New Year!!!
BTW - 'moran's,' you know why I'm disappointed this year? I didn't get a copy of any one of the 5 or 6 Vietnam War deferments that your hero, Dick got. That's all I wanted... Damn that Jewish, Muslim, Kwanza elf!
Oh, and damn you, too!

Posted by: c u n d gulag on December 30, 2009 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

Here's the link, "Moran:"

Your twin, I suppose?

Posted by: c u n d gulag on December 30, 2009 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK



Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM

buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly