CIA director Leon Panetta suggests Dick Cheney wants attack

[techs]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...9338836_panetta15.html
http://www.google.com/hostedne...m7a3zwUEfKgwAD98QKT4O0

CIA head says Cheney almost wishing US be attacked

WASHINGTON (AP) ? 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."

Panetta told The New Yorker for an article in its June 22 issue that Cheney "smells some blood in the water" on the issue of national security.

Cheney has said in several interviews that he thinks Obama is making the U.S. less safe. He has been critical of Obama for ordering the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, halting enhanced interrogations of suspected terrorists and reversing other Bush administration initiatives he says helped to prevent attacks on the U.S.

Last month the former vice president offered a withering critique of Obama's policies and a defense of the Bush administration on the same day that Obama made a major speech about national security.

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."




Funny, but that's exactly how I have viewed Cheney's recent ramarks.
Seriously, the only thing that could help the Republicans at this point is a terrorist attack so they can say "I told you so"

 

[Genx87]

I dont think it would help Republicans because it is too close to the end of Bush's presidency. Plus the spin machine would make sure everybody knows it was Bush's fault. Fuck we have the spin machine now parsing the future budgets trying to pin as much future Obama deficit spending on Bush as possible.

 

[Thump553]

The OP missed an extremely important qualifier in Panetta's statement-the word "almost." Panetta is willing to give Cheney the benefit of the doubt.

Personally, I'm not so certain. Cheney, like so many similarly minded GOP'rs (strong, authoritarian central government) wants concrete evidence of Obama's allegedly erroneous strategy so their party can regain (and continue to abuse) power.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont think it would help Republicans because it is too close to the end of Bush's presidency. Plus the spin machine would make sure everybody knows it was Bush's fault. Fuck we have the spin machine now parsing the future budgets trying to pin as much future Obama deficit spending on Bush as possible.

Imagine that, we attribute the spending that bush signed into law to bush. Talk about unfair

You're also forgetting that Dick Cheney is a psychopath.

 

[DealMonkey]

That means a lot coming from the acting director of the CIA. And that's pretty much my assessment of Cheney's attitude as well.

 

[BarrySotero]

Obama is making the US less safe. His "peace through vulnerability" philosophy begs bad guys to act up - and they do. Obama winks at bad guys while throwing allies down the well. Obama sprays tons of money at junk - but when we have a nutter in North Korea Obama is cutting missile defense by 1.4 billion. That's just kRaZY time stuff. Obama obvioulsy doesn't even like America and in his Cairo speech he didn't mention terrorism once but he got US "torture" into speech despite nobody having been charged or convicted of anything. Truth is, an enemy would have to be dumb to attack with Obama in charge because he can do more damage to America than Al Qaeda ever could. At some point though it's a lock that US will get hit. Cheney knows this and I don't think he wants that to happen at all. Plus Obama likes to surround himself with token GOP'ers and conservatives so he can deflect full blame for his radical and unsane policies. Obama has been a disaster on security.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont think it would help Republicans because it is too close to the end of Bush's presidency. Plus the spin machine would make sure everybody knows it was Bush's fault. Fuck we have the spin machine now parsing the future budgets trying to pin as much future Obama deficit spending on Bush as possible.

Imagine that, we attribute the spending that bush signed into law to bush. Talk about unfair

You're also forgetting that Dick Cheney is a psychopath.

It is called spin. Obama crafts the budget. Everything Obama wants in the budget gets put in the budget regardless of where and when the program was originally enacted. We have programs dating back decades. How much of the 2010 budget are FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton responsible for?

What an execise in futility to spin Obama's expected record deficits. But I know people will continue to try.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont think it would help Republicans because it is too close to the end of Bush's presidency. Plus the spin machine would make sure everybody knows it was Bush's fault. Fuck we have the spin machine now parsing the future budgets trying to pin as much future Obama deficit spending on Bush as possible.

Imagine that, we attribute the spending that bush signed into law to bush. Talk about unfair

You're also forgetting that Dick Cheney is a psychopath.

It is called spin. Obama crafts the budget. Everything Obama wants in the budget gets put in the budget regardless of where and when the program was originally enacted. We have programs dating back decades. How much of the 2010 budget are FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton responsible for?

What an execise in futility to spin Obama's expected record deficits. But I know people will continue to try.

Gotcha, all of those previous programs are Obama's fault. Social Security? Obama's fault. Medicare? Obama's fault. The FDA? obama's fault, Department of Education? Obama's fault, etc. etc. etc.

Republicans.txt

 

[yllus]

What one person thinks another person "almost suggests" is news?

 

[NeoV]

deficits, deficits, - you can keep repeating it - but how much of it is to fix the mess he inherited? It's impossible to say with any real accuracy, but let's stop the pretending that Obama is the devil, he doesn't care how much he spends, etc.

Also - are you telling us that 'spin' only happens with democratic point of views - you do realize that the 'no spin zone' is just a TV show, right?

Bottom line is that Cheney has been in this mode since the 04 elections - hinting that Kerry's election would bring a nuclear attack to a US city, etc, etc - it's just how he works people, nothing new, nothing to be surprised at

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont think it would help Republicans because it is too close to the end of Bush's presidency. Plus the spin machine would make sure everybody knows it was Bush's fault. Fuck we have the spin machine now parsing the future budgets trying to pin as much future Obama deficit spending on Bush as possible.

Imagine that, we attribute the spending that bush signed into law to bush. Talk about unfair

You're also forgetting that Dick Cheney is a psychopath.

It is called spin. Obama crafts the budget. Everything Obama wants in the budget gets put in the budget regardless of where and when the program was originally enacted. We have programs dating back decades. How much of the 2010 budget are FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton responsible for?

What an execise in futility to spin Obama's expected record deficits. But I know people will continue to try.

Gotcha, all of those previous programs are Obama's fault. Social Security? Obama's fault. Medicare? Obama's fault. The FDA? obama's fault, Department of Education? Obama's fault, etc. etc. etc.

Republicans.txt

It is like a timewarp back to Last Thurs.

 

[StageLeft]

Maybe. Rush wanted Obama's administration to be a failure for a similar reason. I've read on the forums people who said they wanted another catastrophe so that people would wake up to the terror threat.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont think it would help Republicans because it is too close to the end of Bush's presidency. Plus the spin machine would make sure everybody knows it was Bush's fault. Fuck we have the spin machine now parsing the future budgets trying to pin as much future Obama deficit spending on Bush as possible.

Imagine that, we attribute the spending that bush signed into law to bush. Talk about unfair

You're also forgetting that Dick Cheney is a psychopath.

It is called spin. Obama crafts the budget. Everything Obama wants in the budget gets put in the budget regardless of where and when the program was originally enacted. We have programs dating back decades. How much of the 2010 budget are FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton responsible for?

What an execise in futility to spin Obama's expected record deficits. But I know people will continue to try.

Gotcha, all of those previous programs are Obama's fault. Social Security? Obama's fault. Medicare? Obama's fault. The FDA? obama's fault, Department of Education? Obama's fault, etc. etc. etc.

Republicans.txt

It is like a timewarp back to Last Thurs.

You're the one who brought it up again.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont think it would help Republicans because it is too close to the end of Bush's presidency.

You overrate the citizens, especially the right-wing. They'd blame Obama.

Plus the spin machine would make sure everybody knows it was Bush's fault. Fuck we have the spin machine now parsing the future budgets trying to pin as much future Obama deficit spending on Bush as possible.

The spin machine is the one denying that the current emergency spending is Bush's fault.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Obama is making the US less safe. His "peace through vulnerability" philosophy begs bad guys to act up - and they do. Obama winks at bad guys while throwing allies down the well. Obama sprays tons of money at junk - but when we have a nutter in North Korea Obama is cutting missile defense by 1.4 billion. That's just kRaZY time stuff. Obama obvioulsy doesn't even like America and in his Cairo speech he didn't mention terrorism once but he got US "torture" into speech despite nobody having been charged or convicted of anything. Truth is, an enemy would have to be dumb to attack with Obama in charge because he can do more damage to America than Al Qaeda ever could. At some point though it's a lock that US will get hit. Cheney knows this and I don't think he wants that to happen at all. Plus Obama likes to surround himself with token GOP'ers and conservatives so he can deflect full blame for his radical and unsane policies. Obama has been a disaster on security.

You lie. Not every word, but pretty much every sentence. Pick a sentence, I'll go into detail.

 

[Lemon law]

Oh come on, it was widely suspected if not known for a fact that Cheney used every incident of an actual attack, and for that matter, was not above using self manufactured incidents, to push his neocon agenda. We can all understand why the war in Afghanistan was made necessary by 911, but why 911 justified an attack on Iraq is and remains
something that Cheney and his cabal at GWB&co pushed to the exclusion of all rationality.

The notion that our porous homeland security protected us from further terrorist attack post 911 is almost laughably absurd. Right now, according to our own NIE, Al-Quida is as strong as it was pre-911, and the notion that they could not easily launch all matter of attacks on US domestic soil, leaves me wondering why they declined the opportunity, but when the USA is jumping off the nearest cliff and bankrupting itself in foreign quagmires, from the Al-Quida standpoint, it may be why screw up a good thing?

Sorry to say, IMHO, its people like Dick Cheney that make me feel unsafe, and when we have a so called war on terror that creates more terrorists than we kill, I have a very good reason to feel less safe.

And given how morally bankrupt and lacking in people skills people like Dick Cheney are, its no accident that both Iraq and Afghanistan were bumbled under their watch, and we are now probably further from any kind of victory now than when we started in 2002 and 2003 respectively.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Lest we forget, the worst terrorist attack on the USA was during the Cheney/Bush watch.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Obama is making the US less safe. His "peace through vulnerability" philosophy begs bad guys to act up - and they do. Obama winks at bad guys while throwing allies down the well. Obama sprays tons of money at junk - but when we have a nutter in North Korea Obama is cutting missile defense by 1.4 billion. That's just kRaZY time stuff. Obama obvioulsy doesn't even like America and in his Cairo speech he didn't mention terrorism once but he got US "torture" into speech despite nobody having been charged or convicted of anything. Truth is, an enemy would have to be dumb to attack with Obama in charge because he can do more damage to America than Al Qaeda ever could. At some point though it's a lock that US will get hit. Cheney knows this and I don't think he wants that to happen at all. Plus Obama likes to surround himself with token GOP'ers and conservatives so he can deflect full blame for his radical and unsane policies. Obama has been a disaster on security.

Vulnerability? Our military expenditures continue to grow. Gitmo is still open. We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only thing missing is a wannabe cowboy redneck in the Whitehouse.

The military spending issue is one place I give Obama a very low F.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Lest we forget, the worst terrorist attack on the USA was during the Cheney/Bush watch.

Yeah...if Gore was President they would have never attacked us! /s Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Obama is making the US less safe. His "peace through vulnerability" philosophy begs bad guys to act up - and they do. Obama winks at bad guys while throwing allies down the well. Obama sprays tons of money at junk - but when we have a nutter in North Korea Obama is cutting missile defense by 1.4 billion. That's just kRaZY time stuff. Obama obvioulsy doesn't even like America and in his Cairo speech he didn't mention terrorism once but he got US "torture" into speech despite nobody having been charged or convicted of anything. Truth is, an enemy would have to be dumb to attack with Obama in charge because he can do more damage to America than Al Qaeda ever could. At some point though it's a lock that US will get hit. Cheney knows this and I don't think he wants that to happen at all. Plus Obama likes to surround himself with token GOP'ers and conservatives so he can deflect full blame for his radical and unsane policies. Obama has been a disaster on security.

Vulnerability? Our military expenditures continue to grow. Gitmo is still open. We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only thing missing is a wannabe cowboy redneck in the Whitehouse.

The military spending issue is one place I give Obama a very low F.

So isn't Obama following the same redneck cowboy policies of Bush then? Maybe Obama is not a wannabe and is just a true redneck cowboy then?

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Obama is making the US less safe. His "peace through vulnerability" philosophy begs bad guys to act up - and they do. Obama winks at bad guys while throwing allies down the well. Obama sprays tons of money at junk - but when we have a nutter in North Korea Obama is cutting missile defense by 1.4 billion. That's just kRaZY time stuff. Obama obvioulsy doesn't even like America and in his Cairo speech he didn't mention terrorism once but he got US "torture" into speech despite nobody having been charged or convicted of anything. Truth is, an enemy would have to be dumb to attack with Obama in charge because he can do more damage to America than Al Qaeda ever could. At some point though it's a lock that US will get hit. Cheney knows this and I don't think he wants that to happen at all. Plus Obama likes to surround himself with token GOP'ers and conservatives so he can deflect full blame for his radical and unsane policies. Obama has been a disaster on security.

You lie. Not every word, but pretty much every sentence. Pick a sentence, I'll go into detail.

I'm beginning to think that this poster is a 15yo. Sad to see such a young brain eaten up already.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Obama is making the US less safe. His "peace through vulnerability" philosophy begs bad guys to act up - and they do. Obama winks at bad guys while throwing allies down the well. Obama sprays tons of money at junk - but when we have a nutter in North Korea Obama is cutting missile defense by 1.4 billion. That's just kRaZY time stuff. Obama obvioulsy doesn't even like America and in his Cairo speech he didn't mention terrorism once but he got US "torture" into speech despite nobody having been charged or convicted of anything. Truth is, an enemy would have to be dumb to attack with Obama in charge because he can do more damage to America than Al Qaeda ever could. At some point though it's a lock that US will get hit. Cheney knows this and I don't think he wants that to happen at all. Plus Obama likes to surround himself with token GOP'ers and conservatives so he can deflect full blame for his radical and unsane policies. Obama has been a disaster on security.

You lie. Not every word, but pretty much every sentence. Pick a sentence, I'll go into detail.

I'm beginning to think that this poster is a 15yo. Sad to see such a young brain eaten up already.

That's an insult. There are plenty of 15 yo's that aren't total douche bag trolls.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Obama is making the US less safe. His "peace through vulnerability" philosophy begs bad guys to act up - and they do. Obama winks at bad guys while throwing allies down the well. Obama sprays tons of money at junk - but when we have a nutter in North Korea Obama is cutting missile defense by 1.4 billion. That's just kRaZY time stuff. Obama obvioulsy doesn't even like America and in his Cairo speech he didn't mention terrorism once but he got US "torture" into speech despite nobody having been charged or convicted of anything. Truth is, an enemy would have to be dumb to attack with Obama in charge because he can do more damage to America than Al Qaeda ever could. At some point though it's a lock that US will get hit. Cheney knows this and I don't think he wants that to happen at all. Plus Obama likes to surround himself with token GOP'ers and conservatives so he can deflect full blame for his radical and unsane policies. Obama has been a disaster on security.

You lie. Not every word, but pretty much every sentence. Pick a sentence, I'll go into detail.

I'm beginning to think that this poster is a 15yo. Sad to see such a young brain eaten up already.

That's an insult. There are plenty of 15 yo's that aren't total douche bag trolls.

You're right, sorry. Most 15yo's don't post in p&n though. And, it would be fine if they did without the malice and jaundice.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Lest we forget, the worst terrorist attack on the USA was during the Cheney/Bush watch.

Yeah...if Gore was President they would have never attacked us! /s Thanks for the laugh.

His point was that the Bush policies - which were to *lower* the priorit of Al Queda - were unsuccessful in 'preventing an attack', so the arguement they did is wrong.

As for whether Gore would have - I don't think we can say, but we can say for pretty much certain that his policies would have had stronger efforts - read Richard Clarke on it.

IMO, under Gore the attack would most likely have happened, but despite better efforts, and the response would have been a lot more sensible, not the Patriot Act, torture, the 'unitary executive', and other Bush administration assaults on the nation and the rest of the world.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Obama is making the US less safe. His "peace through vulnerability" philosophy begs bad guys to act up - and they do. Obama winks at bad guys while throwing allies down the well. Obama sprays tons of money at junk - but when we have a nutter in North Korea Obama is cutting missile defense by 1.4 billion. That's just kRaZY time stuff. Obama obvioulsy doesn't even like America and in his Cairo speech he didn't mention terrorism once but he got US "torture" into speech despite nobody having been charged or convicted of anything. Truth is, an enemy would have to be dumb to attack with Obama in charge because he can do more damage to America than Al Qaeda ever could. At some point though it's a lock that US will get hit. Cheney knows this and I don't think he wants that to happen at all. Plus Obama likes to surround himself with token GOP'ers and conservatives so he can deflect full blame for his radical and unsane policies. Obama has been a disaster on security.

Vulnerability? Our military expenditures continue to grow. Gitmo is still open. We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only thing missing is a wannabe cowboy redneck in the Whitehouse.

The military spending issue is one place I give Obama a very low F.

So isn't Obama following the same redneck cowboy policies of Bush then? Maybe Obama is not a wannabe and is just a true redneck cowboy then?

Obama is far more diplomatic than Bush. That's the only difference, so far.