Dick Cheney is weak on terror

September 25, 2006

In a twisted sense, I have an odd admiration for Dick Cheney. Most conservatives no longer have the ability to surprise me, no matter how inane their rhetoric gets. The Vice President, however, has just the right combination of gall, arrogance, and idiocy to astound me. Take today, for example.

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday accused Democrats of being soft in the war on terrorism with a strategy of “resignation and defeatism in the face of determined enemies.”

Cheney, in a speech to Wisconsin Republicans, singled out in particular Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, West Virginia Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean for criticism. […]

Cheney cited Reid for suggesting the United States should not have invaded Iraq in 2003 even if it meant leaving Saddam Hussein in power and for opposing the Patriot Act, controversial laws passed with the goal of fighting terrorism. He criticized Dean for saying the capture of Saddam had not made America safer.

Some days, the mind reels more than others.

Yes, Reid suggested that the United States should not have invaded Iraq in 2003. Of course he did. If you look at Iraq today, and compare it to pre-invasion Iraq, which represents a greater threat to the U.S.? To regional stability? Which is closer to civil war? Which is producing more civilian casualties? Which costs Americans more in blood and treasure?

And yes, Dean said the capture of Saddam had not made America safer. Of course he did. The consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government is, apparently, that the ongoing war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism. An American intelligence official said, quite plainly, that the National Intelligence Estimate “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse.” If given a choice between more Saddam or more terrorism, it’s not a tough call.

By Cheney’s definition, everyone in the country — except those who are willing to accept his bizarre and nonsensical rhetoric — are “weak.” Just once I want to hear someone of prominence state the obvious — that Cheney is weak on terror. That his policies are in line with Osama bin Laden’s agenda. That if the world’s leading terrorists sat down to create a wish list for U.S. decision-making post-9/11, they’d probably ask that the United States fail to follow through on Afghanistan and allow the Taliban to resurface and thrive; alienate our allies through a mismanaged war; squander our moral authority by ignoring the Geneva Conventions; and deemphasize homeland security priorities such as port and airport security — which just so happens to mirror Dick Cheney’s priorities for the last five years.

We’re weak on terror? Good one, Dick. Tell us another one.

I can meet you half-way, Steve—I may not be “someone of prominence—but I’ll say it anyway:

DICK CHENEY IS WEAK ON TERROR!

Hope it helps….

  • Wow. Very shrill. And quite accurate. I think you have reached Krugman status with this post. I fail to see what it is that Cheney has done, or what it is about him, that keeps others from just fully frontally assaulting him, orally and by written word, for all of his screwups, errors, terrible and wrong decisions, and poor manners.

    Other than the fact he is the anti-christ.

  • No, not weak. Weak implies at least some push-back.
    Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al. are incompetent. They are destructively incompetent. Their screw-ups have made it worse.
    Weak would be a compliment to these arrogant dumb-asses.

  • by Bill Douglas

    By William E. Douglas, Jr., is author of \”The Amateur Parent – A Book on Life, Death, War & Peace, and Everything Else in the Universe.\” Bill has been a guest columnist for the Kansas City Star, The Business Journal, and other media worldwide. His past essays include, \”Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts,\” \”The Explosion of the 9-11 Truth Movement — US Media\’s Dirty Little Secret,\” and \”Why the Jewish Community Should Demand 9/11 Truth.\”

    There is a 9/11 cover up occurring. It appears to be intentional. When the truth about 9/11 comes out, that it was an inside job involving members of the Bush Administration, there will be a massive international investigation. The media that helped with this cover up will be held accountable, if there is any hope for the future of democracy.

    How do I know there is a cover up? Popular Mechanics\’ Editor recently appeared on Amy Goodman\’s Democracy Now with the producers of \”Loose Change,\” the documentary exposing evidence of 9/11 as an inside job. As is Popular Mechanics\’ habit they quickly descended into name-calling and innuendo that was meant to character assassinate rather than debate facts. Words like \”holocaust deniers,\” \”JFK conspiricists,\” were used to charge the producers of Loose Change with the old tin foil hat smear.

    [editor\’s note: this comment went on for 2,300 words. I edited it to include just the first three paragraphs. -CB]

  • You could have gone with “Cheney is Weak” in the South Park sense.

    But consider his audience. A group of Republicans and, I have no doubt, Republicans were carefully vetted before they were admitted into His Majesty’s oily presence. In addition, these must have been Republicans who don’t find Chinny as disgusting as a pillow made of road kill. Of course he’s going to spew this sort of drivel over this sort of audience. Not only do they deserve it, but their wittle heads would go boom if the Admin changed its message.

    p.s. Dick, I would not annoy Jay if I were you.

  • I disagree, Buzzmon – they are only incompetent if you assume their goals are what they say they are (protecting Americans). If you look deeper and understand their true “full spectrum dominance” goals, and also look at today’s price of a barrel of crude, then they are pretty competent.

  • This might be a good place to dig up Cheney’s explanations for why Saddam was left in power in 1991. Regardless of the reasons, the fact is that leaving Saddam in power back then was okay, but after 2003 it would’ve been intolerable, in Cheney’s mind.

  • Ohioan (Re #6) –
    I understand your point, and you are correct.
    I am an idealist, I believe that public servants should serve the public, not deceive and fleece the ordinary citizens. Not to this degree, as least
    It is all in the defintion. As the Bush Crime Family’s (true, but unstated) goals are, they are quite deserving of “Mission Accomplished.”
    Sad for America, though, isn’t it?

  • They are incompetent in the sense that insane people are incompetent. They manage to look OK on the outside, except everything they say is weirdly out of whack with reality. They are internally consistent, but inconsistent with reality.

  • Attack, attack, attack. Hey Cheney, where the hell is bin Laden. If you and W are so freaking tough, why haven’t you caught him yet. It’s only been five years. Maybe you don’t want to catch him. Maybe bin Laden is the best friend you ever had.

    Over, and over, and over……

  • I don’t think it’s been publicized enough how shortly after 9/11, the Bushites did exactly what Osama wanted – they pulled our soldiers out of Saudi Arabia. This was Osama’s main gripe against us, and George W. Bush was quick to oblige.

  • Dick and his Grand Oligarchy Party just had to sit back, and wait for the 9/11 strikes. Feigning ignorance of the warnings, they accelerated their assault on the treasury. Dick will have lined his pockets with his Hallburton stock options, with piles of riches to come once he’s out of office. The oil companies will put him on their boards. His coffers will overflow. For him, politics is not the process of making the best use of the public’s money. It is the process of borrowing the most money the markets will stomach to spend the most money possible to enrich himself first, and his friends second. If you’re a billionaire, you’re a friend of Dick by default. Dick prefers to spend our money on military follies not because he is a sick fuck like George (who must positively dream of pulling the limbs from childrens’ bodies, and then playing pop-eye with the corpses), but because he knows he can silence most of the press by accusing his detractors of being “weak on terror” or “not supporting the troops.” A hypothetical – If Dick had gobs of stock options in an agribusiness producing spinach, we’d be eating it at every meal, we’d have a humongous federal subsidy for spinach biofueled vehicles, Fox news would be read aloud only between bites, and we would have invaded Mexico due to reports of E.coli in California. We might even have Popeye in the center of our national flag by now. Dick is the slimiest politician since Tricky Dick. He is a self-serving scoundrel of the lowest order. I don’t understand how he isn’t assaulted at every public outing. Oh yea, he doesn’t give public speeches – silly me.

  • I got past the “they’re incompetent” argument a long time ago. Right about the time my mom, brother and sister lost their homes in New Orleans. They simply don’t give a shit. When that is coupled with their singular goal of power and the sub-goals of waging war with financial goals as the underlying motive, you cross the line into evil. Calling them incompetent excuses their conduct.

  • Father John O’Connor discusses the history of Zionism in the Middle East, the Palestinians and the WTC attacks.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-vL79pkuuE

    Bezmenov on demoralization

    Former KGB agent and Soviet defector Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov explains Communist psychological warfare methods and results.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE8MCSu_K-A

    Fr O’Connor on FDR’s treachery

    Father John O’Connor discusses Pearl Harbor and FDR’s love of Communism.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvMK9y7wtEo

  • As I may have mentioned before, a source recently used Stalin in Russia as a comparison with Cheney in America, when Cheney’s popularity ratings were at 18% (I have no idea what they might be today, but I’d speculate lower) – the article pointed out that more people surveyed in Russia thought Stalin was a good leader today than people surveyed in America today thought Cheney was a good leader.

    Russians were terrified of Stalin; nearly one in every two Russian households lost someone to Stalin’s insane paranoia and bloodthirsty purges. Yet he is nostalgically remembered as a good leader by more than 18% of Russians, for his ability to keep order. Well, yes; that he could do.

    Dick Cheney is more unpopular among Americans than Russia’s cruelest dictator in a long line of dictators is in Russia. As such, how seriously should his moon-dog howlings be viewed?

  • It’s pretty ironic…I think the same thoughts, but in reference to the democrats with a strategy of “resignation and defeatism in the face of REPUBLICANS…

    It hasn’t occured to Cheney that we anti-war, anti-Iraq-invasion folk have been pit-bulls as far as our opposition. And most of the nation agrees.

    They can say what they want, I just want democrats to stand up to them…and stop appeasing Republicans.

  • He’s going for that “not guilty by reason of mental defect” defense when and if the shit hits the fan. He’s making a hell of a case for himself.

  • How about “Cheney is stupid on terror” or “Cheney is incompetent on terror”? Of course, one should assume that the invasion of Iraq and the grabbing of executive power are not related to terrorism at all, but rather using terrorism as a smokescreen to accomplish a long held agenda. However, public perception is that those things are about terrorism. Democrats have to convey that the Bushite methods of fighting terror are ineffective.

    BTW, how about Condi and the ‘we did at least as much about Bin Laden before 9/11 as Clinton did’ bullshit. I guess that means drawing up plans to invade Iraq…

  • Nothing Cheyney said is incorrect. You are a very short term thinker, like the Dems. Think about the long term and the Iraq war is a neccesary evil in the war on islamic extremism. Just one small front in the larger war that the west will be fighting for the next few decades or centuries (at least). This is really only the latest battle. Islam was weak for a long time but is on the rise. These are the same battles that were fought 1000 years ago. This time Islam is more aggressive. They want all of Europe, not just Spain.

  • How is Iraq a war on Islamic extremism? I mean, before we showed up, it didn’t have any. Saddam was a secular, westernized ruler, which is why the Islamic extremists hated him. The Iraq war was exactly what Iran wanted, which is why Iran endorsed President Bush in 2004. They wanted to destabilize the region, because that would galvanize the fundamentalists, and move towards creating a Shiite superstate. They accomplished their goal. We were the tool.

    • Comments are closed.