CIA Walks Back Panetta Comment: He Doesn't Think Cheney Wants A Terrorist Attack
The CIA is now walking back Director Leon Panetta's comments that former Vice President Dick Cheney may be hoping for the country to be attacked by terrorists again.
"The Director does not believe the former Vice President wants an attack," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said in a statement to CNN. "He did not say that. 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."
For the record, here's what Panetta said to the New Yorker about Cheney's recent speeches. "I think he smells some blood in the water on the national-security issue," said Panetta. "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."
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Why hold back against Cheney? He won't hold back against you.
June 15, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is the GOP wishing/praying for another 9/11?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=5522
.
June 15, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just can't accuse the VP of wanting the country to be attacked...even though it would be the best thing that could possibly happen to the Republican party.
What you can accuse the VP of wanting is what is described in "The Shock Doctrine". He knows that shocks happen. And when they do, the response is based on the ideas that are "lying around" at the time.
Cheney wants to have their ideas to continue to be "lying around" even after they are out of office - in case something does happen.
Leon should have taken this line...and it could have reintroduced that whole Shock Doctrine for public debate. A winning approach - not for the Democratic Party - but for peace.
June 15, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Panetta spoke the truth -- he shouldn't take back anything.
June 15, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't.
This media cliche "walking back" seems to imply a retraction, but in most instances refers to a statement that was either carelessly misconstrued or deliberately distorted, then was restated in context.
Any time we see the phrase "walked back" we can assume it actually applies to a statement that was "walked forward" by the media (or, in the case of Cheney, an adept media manipulator) and is being reset to its original meaning.
June 15, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it were not true, you could prove it false.
"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing ..."
Or are you saying that it is MORE than a little bit and that it's not "almost as if" but factually so? In that case let's see your polygraph results on Mr. Cheney, please...
I don't get why any "walk back" was necessary, the language it quite clearly qualified.
June 15, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
June 15, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you backing Cheney?
June 17, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope.
I'll leave that ["backing Cheney"] to Larry Craig!
rotflmao
June 18, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If someone sincerely believes that an adversary's policy invites disaster, it is psychologically impossible for that individual, however noble, not to wish at some level for that disaster to occur. Cheney undoubtedly wishes to be proved right. I am not a Cheney fan - far from it - but I also believe he wishes no harm to befall his country, and so even as he hopes for the disaster that will prove him right, he also hopes it won't happen.
That ambivalence is inherent in human nature, and there is no point in regretting it, because we humans are what we are.
In my view, Panetta's comments crossed the line, not because he was wrong to think what he thought, but because he was wrong to say it. In making his comments, he implied, unfairly, that Cheney could avoid the kind of thought process that's an unavoidable element of human psychology in circumstances like this.
June 15, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Cheney is a very psychologically sick man.
June 15, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. Because he DOES want us to be attacked. Never mind that his regime was in charge when we were attacked before (while everyone was on vacation after the first major warning). His pathology needs a whole new DSM category.
June 15, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit. Are you suggesting that 9/11 COULDN'T have been prevented --instead of perhaps being ALLOWED to happen?
Cheney lead the lying of the country into illegally invading and occupying Iraq, which has killed and maimed tens of thusands of US citizens.
Cheney couldn't give a fuck LESS about this country: his ACTIONS demonstrate that fact.
June 16, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Walking back" - the latest politician two step
June 15, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Walking back" -- the latest media fabrication.
June 15, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally.
Panetta: "It's almost as if Cheney wants us to be attacked."
Media: "Panetta says Cheney wants us to be attacked!"
Spokesman: "He didn't say that."
Media: "Panetta takes his statement back!"
Terribly shoddy work on the part of the media. Unsurprising...but terribly shoddy.
June 22, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironically, Cheney originated the DC Walk Back circa 2002-2005
June 15, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney wouldn't mind an attack, of course not. That's abundantly obvious. It's more important to Cheney for him to be right than for the country to be secure. An attack wouldn't affect him personally, so he has everything to gain from it and nothing to lose.
And no, I won't be "walking back" these comments. The guy is a war criminal protected only by the gutlessness of our politicians.
June 16, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney wishing for an attack again?
Cheney was faster than a flash of lightening implementing the Project for a New American Century wish list after 9/11. How could W possibly organize the massive Patriot Act in the short time after 9/11, complete with anthrax laced letters sent to the chief opponents of the Patriot Act.
All the 9/11 warnings were ignored. Wishing and hoping, I suppose. But who took down WTC7. NIST under pressure finally said steel induced failure due to fire. I suppose that's now believable given the twin towers which were actually hit by airplanes.
We need some historian activists!
June 16, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Idiot:
The "Patriot Act" was a wishlist gathering dust on a shelf since at latest Nixon. It was not a new proposal. 9/11 was an excuse to -- finally -- rush it through.
As for the bullshit conspirabunk about WTC7: have you the least clue how much of a tremor was made by the impact of the collapsing towers, and how that would damage nearby buildings?
And as for the far-right lunatic fringe anti-gum'mint nonsense that "the gum'mint did it": all that would be necessary would be for the gov't to ALLOW it to happen. All the rest is simply out-and-out horseshit to be believed by the stupid.
June 16, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leon, just shut your mouth and make sure somebody is watching Cheney at all times.
June 16, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Message delivered by Panetta. Cheney got it that there will be push back if he goes over the line. Therefore, Panetta could afford to walk it back a bit. After all, Cheney has the exposure on lots of fronts and the bad poll numbers.The bulls are rutting.
June 19, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except, he didn't walk it back. The headline is completely false. The spokesman said, "he didn't say that." And that spokesman was right...he said "it's *almost* as if..." and that's not the same thing.
June 22, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink